Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lok Sabha Debates

Introduction Of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2016. on 27 July, 2016

Sixteenth Loksabha an> Title: Introduction of 'The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2016.

   

HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, we take up item No.10 – Shri Arun Jaitley.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MINISTER OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): I beg to move:

“That the Bill further to amend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, be taken into consideration. ”   HON.  DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to say anything?

 

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I just want to make a brief comment as far as this legislation is concerned. Originally the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act was enacted in 1988. The tenor of the provisions of that Act had only nine Sections and any person who wishes to acquire an asset or a property must do it in his own name, with his money. If he acquires it in the name of somebody else, then, it is deemed to be a benami property.

Even though two judgements of the Supreme Court came, as to which is a benami property and which  is not a benami property, from 1988 till today, 2016, this law has not been put into effect. And the reason why this law was not given effect was that the law provided for two significant provisions as to the fact that if there is a benami property, benami transactions are prohibited and the State will have the power to acquire the benami property. Further that the person who enters into this benami transaction is liable to be prosecuted. There was nothing else mentioned in the Act.

When  this Act went to the Law Ministry thereafter, there was no machinery provided for as to how  the acquisition would take place, as to what would be the terms of the acquisition. When this law was framed, it was thought that everything else would take place by virtue of rules. Probably the Law Ministry thought, and rightly so that this could be a case of excessive delegation. There are some vital provisions in every law which have to be provided in the legislation itself, and some non-operational provisions could be operationalised through the rules itself. So the Law Ministry said that rules cannot be framed. So, this Act had to be operationalised through rules, and the rules were never framed.

Thereafter, an effort was made and to begin this particular legislation subsequently, after this legislation was brought in, it was then redrafted in 2011 by the UPA Government in the form of amendment to the 1988 Bill. The reason why we want to amend the 1988 Bill – the original Bill has nine Sections but a large number of Sections were added – one proposal was that it should be repealed and a new Bill should come in. But then if we brought in a new Bill, properties acquired benami between the period of 1988 onwards would have all gone scot-free. So, it was considered necessary that the old law be allowed to remain, and the new amendments be inserted into the old law itself. Now that Bill lapsed with the lapsing of the Lok Sabha, even though it was referred to a Standing Committee, and the Report did come.

In 2015, a fresh amendment Bill was introduced by us, the original Bill has nine Sections, and the amendment Bill has 71 Sections. The reason for incorporating the amendments in the Bill is again the same that we want the Bill to be operationalised from 1988 onwards. A large number of amendments have been introduced. This Bill has been referred to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee has given a certain set of recommendations and the most important amongst them was that what are the exceptions to the benami principles. One exception which the law provided for was, properties held within an Undivided Hindu Family. That is, property may be in the name of the Karta but the beneficiaries may be other coparceners.

          The second amendment was, in the event of a Trust, Trustee can hold the property as a fiduciary of the principal Trust. So, those would be exempted. Now, there was certain categories of amendments which Members of the Standing Committee itself suggested that there are a large number of properties particularly in the Union Territory and elsewhere where transactions take place on a Power of Attorney and an agreement to sell, people are put into possession and by virtue of the provisions of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Properties Act the possession is protected.  But the property continues to be in the name of the original owner. Will those be treated be as benami? So, Members suggested that a further amendment may be incorporated that properties which are already under some form of arrangement of this kind should really be brought in as far as this legislation is concerned. We considered it appropriate and that key amendment has been accepted by the Government. Therefore, those amendments have also been circulated.

          Sir, the principal object behind this Bill is that a lot of people who have unaccounted money invest and buy immovable property in the name of some other person or a non-existent person or a fictitious person or a benami person. So these transactions are to be discouraged.  As far as assets held illegally abroad are concerned, from the very beginning the effort of the Government has been, they should be squeezed, the use of cash beyond a certain limit should be discouraged, unaccounted money must make way and, so, the colour of transaction of money itself must change. Therefore, this is an important step in that direction. It is predominantly an anti-black money measure that any transaction which is benami is illegal and the property is liable to be confiscated. It will vest in the State and the entrant of the benami transaction is liable to be prosecuted.

          With these few opening remarks, I commend this Bill for discussion and acceptance of the hon. House.                     

HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Motion moved:

“That the Bill further to amend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, be taken into consideration.”   SHRI S.P. MUDDAHANUME GOWDA (TUMKUR): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for having allowed me to initiate the discussion on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015.

          Sir, benami transactions are detrimental to the interest of this nation and benami transactions constitute a serious offence against the State also. It is the bounden duty of the Government not only to prohibit these transactions, but also to prevent any benami transactions from taking place. So, prohibition is needed and prevention is also required equally.

          We have been hearing much about Indian black money in foreign countries. We hope that the Union Government is still making its effort to bring back Indian black money in foreign countries. But to our surprise, we have got enormous and sufficient black money on our Indian soil itself.

          Sir, as the hon. Minister has rightly pointed out, these haves will make use of have-nots to preserve their ill-gotten money. The haves, who have got a lot of ill-gotten money, will make use of the situation of have-nots and they will keep this money in the name of have-nots.

The easiest way of keeping the ill-gotten money is to invest it in land properties. We have been seeing that throughout the country a lot of valuable, prime properties are being purchased by some people in the name of somebody else. A lot of black money is invested in land properties. We can see a lot of land properties, which are fertile in nature, have been kept barren and vacant. The persons who invest their black money in these lands, they have not purchased for the purpose of agriculture. They have purchased these land properties for the purpose of making use of their ill-gotten money in those properties.

Sir, with utmost responsibility I would like to place on record that in our country, a lot of lands, which are vacant and barren, have been converted into banks of this black money.

I would like to give you one example.  Suppose, there is a property worth Rs. 1 crore.  Normally, the guidance value of this property would be about Rs. 10 lakh.  People will purchase that property, which is worth Rs. 1 crore, for Rs. 10 lakh on paper by paying Rs. 1 crore.  In that way, they will safely keep their ill-gotten    Rs. 90 lakh in that vacant land. This ill-gotten money is being spread all over the country.  This money is also not accountable.  These are all white-collared offences. They are investing this black money for two purposes.  One is to keep their black money safely on a vacant land and secondly they want to escape from the clutches of law.  So, they will make use of this vacant land just to escape from the clutches of law and to keep their money safe.  This law is not only detrimental to the economy of this country but it is also detrimental to the food production of this country.  It is because these people do not want to make use of such lands for agricultural purposes.  They will keep such lands vacant or barren.  This is definitely a very good move.  This legislation was brought forward by the UPA Government which is now being introduced by the NDA Government.  We wholeheartedly support this Bill.

          I have also suggested some preventive measures to prevent this black money being used by the people.  Normally, in real estate, that is the legal term which the people have started using, there is a lot of black money transaction.  I do not say that the entire real estate sector is clubbed with black money.  But normally the people who have got a lot of black money, they invest this black money in real estate business.  The real estate business means purchasing vacant lands. 

          We have got the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.  That is prevailing in Karnataka. This has been done by the then Congress Government.  There, a non-agriculturist or a company cannot purchase or own agricultural land.  Section 17 (a) and (b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act prohibits any person, who is not an agriculturist, from purchasing agricultural land.  That is the way by which we have prevented black money holders from investing this money in agricultural lands.  Of course, such kind of laws may be there in some other parts of the country but ultimately, in that perspective, it is the responsibility of the Union Government to bring some stringent legislations to prevent the non-agriculturists, who have no intention of doing agriculture, by encroaching upon the agricultural properties. 

          Secondly, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has also suggested that the Aadhaar number, PAN and bank account number should be connected to every land transaction.  If the Aadhaar number is linked; if the PAN is linked; if the bank account number is linked; and if more details are taken by the registering authorities about the purchaser then it will stop generation of black money.  Above all, it is the responsibility of the respective Governments to find out the exact source of money that is going to be used in purchasing land. So, they should ascertain the source of money, not necessarily income.  Then only, to some extent, they can prevent fictitious persons.  Benami people can invest in agricultural lands.  That is why, now the Government of India should bring some legislation with regard to that.

          Secondly, how do you collect information about the benami transactions?  There are people who are prepared to come and give information about these benami transactions.  Benami transactions cannot take place without the knowledge of other individuals.  Definitely people are prepared to come and inform the concerned authorities about these transactions.   We can say that they are the whistle blowers.  But, what is the law you have enacted in this Bill to protect the interest of the whistle blowers?  Persons who want to disclose about the illegal transactions or benami transactions are neither protected, given protection here, nor any incentive is being announced.  Why should he come and unnecessarily take risk by informing about the illegal transaction of somebody else?  So, he should be protected. 

In addition to that, some incentive should be given to him also.  His identity and other things also may be safeguarded.  Then only we can extract more information about the benami transactions. 

          Now, I would like to mention a few facts, give my individual view about some of the lacunas in the proposed Bill.  You are right in saying that the offence committed under this Act is very serious.  It is a white-collared offence.  It is an offence against the State.  You must be extra careful about the people who indulge in these activities.  They are doing such activities at the cost of the future of this nation, at the cost of the economy of this nation.  The sentence you have prescribed under Section 61 is from one year to seven years – not less than one year and it may go up to seven years.  Rightly it is triable by a Sessions Court.  But, you have stated that these offences are non-cognizable.  I would like to know how an offence of serious nature, an offence which is liable to be tried by a Sessions Court, can be treated as a non-cognizable offence.  The moment you say that it is a non-cognizable offence, it takes away the seriousness of this offence.  Normally in the country what we feel is, an offence which is triable by a Sessions Court is a serious offence.  That is why, that should be made a cognizable offence.

          Here, in the appellate court, you have made a provision for right to representation.  Principles of natural justice require and demand a person should be given some legal assistance.  The same provision is not provided to that person before the adjudicating authority because adjudicating authority is the person who virtually goes to the very root of the case.  He gives opportunity of hearing to the person.  He records the evidence.  He looks into the documents.  He hears the arguments and then takes a decision.  Virtually the trial will be conducted before the adjudicating authority.  But, unfortunately, you have not provided for legal assistance to appear before the adjudicating authority; whereas, before the High Court, of course there is a provision in that regard.   Before the appellate tribunal also, you have provided the legal representation.  Before the High Court also, one can definitely be represented by an advocate.  But you have not mentioned anything about appearance before the adjudicating authority.

That is why, this is my request.  Tomorrow, anything which we enact here will be subjected to scrutiny by the courts. Tomorrow, the courts should not say that an opportunity of hearing is not given, he has not been properly represented and he was not capable of defending his case, such things should not happen.  That should not become a problem before any court. That is one thing.          

          Secondly, regarding these authorities, jurisdiction and procedural aspect appear to be too high, too heavy and too lengthy.  You are creating four provisions at the initial stage i.e. initiating officer – one who initiates the cases. Then, why do you want this approving authority?  He, as the initiating officer, is a right person who looks in detail about the benami transactions.  He will have the first hand information about all these things.  But you have also asked him to take approval from the approving authority.  Then, there is an administrator. Even the initiating officer can also play the role of an administrator but still you have created one more post, the administrator who manages the land which was confiscated. Then, there is adjudicating authority.  Of course, the adjudicating authority has got the original jurisdiction of trying the case and he is the person who declares about the benami transaction and he is the person who actually confiscates these illegal properties after having come to the conclusion that it is a benami transaction.  That is one thing.

          Secondly, you have provided a provision for this appellate tribunal.  But in the appellate tribunal, what happens is that though the matter is being seriously adjudicated before the adjudicating authority, but once again you have made a provision for recording evidence,  looking into the documents and verification of the documents.  All these things will be done before the appellate tribunal.  That is not required.  The Appellate Tribunal should hear the appeal on the basis of the evidence which is available, on the basis of the evidence which has been recorded before the adjudicating authority.  But you have a made provision to re-introduce the case here also in the Appellate Tribunal. That means the original jurisdiction still exists before the Appellate Tribunal, which is not correct.

          Once again the High Court is there.  Naturally, these cases will be taken to the Supreme Court also.  That will definitely help the people who indulge in these activities, because they can drag the case for years together.  That is how, things are happening.  In the Appellate Tribunal also, you have not fixed any time limit.  You have used the words “may hear and decide within one year”.  Naturally, your are a legal luminary and you know how these courts will use the word ‘may’.  I think that will not solve the problem. The seriousness of the whole issue or the concern of the Government is to deal with these cases very stringently. I think that will be taken away the way in which the provision is being made to drag the case for years together. That should not happen. 

          Finally, before the High Court, it is right that the High Court deals with only the substantial question of law. That is okay.  The High Court can hear if there is any error in the substantial question of law, then only they can hear and dispose of the case.  I will read Section 49(7).

“The High Court may determine any issue which has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal. ”             Then, the Pandora’s box of litigation is opened.      The High Court also, not necessarily on the substantial question of law but even on the facts also, can deal with it. That is once again a hindrance to the very purpose of this law.

 So, finally, as I pointed out earlier, there are many flaws which have to be looked into, and by adding only one thing, I will conclude my speech. The Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended about known source of income. That should not be there. It is only known sources. That should be there. It is because income means a person, who has got income, is different from a person who has got sources. Sources are different from sources of income. ‘Known sources’ are the right words. In spite of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, that amendment has not been made. So, that is the right thing because income is different from sources. That is why, that should be seriously looked into.

          With all these things, I fully support this Bill, and I express my sincere thanks for giving me the opportunity.

                                                                                               

डॉ. रमेश पोखरियाल निशंक (हरिद्वार): उपाध्यक्ष जी, मैं, बेनामी संव्यवहार (प्रति­ाॊध) संशोधन विधेयक, 2015 जो बेनामी संव्यवहार (प्रति­षेध) अधिनियम 1988 का संशोधन करने के लिए लाया गया है, इसके पक्ष में बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं।

          सबसे पहले मैं अपने प्रधानमंत्री जी और अपने यशस्वी वित्त मंत्री जी को बधाई देना चाहता हूं कि उन्होंने हिंदुस्तान के इतिहास में पारदर्शिता और काले धन को रोकने के लिए एक नया इतिहास रचने की दिशा में महत्वपूर्ण क़दम उठाया है। मुझे याद आता है कि आदरणीय वित्त मंत्री अरूण जेटली जी ने अपने बजट भाषण , 2015 में कहा था कि जहां तक घरेलू काले धन पर रोकथाम का प्रश्न है, हम एक विस्तृत बेनामी संव्यवहार (प्रति­ाॊध) संशोधन विधेयक सदन में प्रस्तुत करेंगे। उन्होंने उस दिन अपने भा­ाण में यह भी कहा था कि इस बिल के पास होने से हम बेनामी सम्पत्ति जब्त कर सकेंगे और दंडात्मक व्यवस्था द्वारा बेनामी सम्पत्ति, विशे­षकर रीयल एस्टेट में जाने वाले धन पर रोकथाम लगा पाएंगे। उन्होंने अपने बजट  भाषण में जो कहा था, आज इस सदन के सामने उस प्रतिबद्धता को निभाने की दिशा में, इस बिल को प्रस्तुत करके, बहुत बड़ा इतिहास रचने की दिशा में काम किया है।

          महोदय, वैसे देखा जाए तो लॉ कमीशन की जो 57वीं रिपोर्ट अगस्त, 1973 की है, उस रिपोर्ट में भी यह कहा गया था कि पूरे विश्व के मानस पटल पर इस तरीके का जो काला धन और भारत के प्रति जो उसकी छवि इस देश के लोगों को चिंतित करती थी, उस आधार पर यह रिपोर्ट आई थी, लेकिन वर्ष 1973 के बाद 1988 में राजीव गांधी जी के समय में यह अधिनियम लाया गया था। मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि विश्व समुदाय और देश के जनमानस और भारत में फैले आर्थिक भ्रष्­टाचार से चिंतित होने के बाद इसे दबाव में लाया गया था, लेकिन वह भी व्यावहारिक रूप में नहीं लाया गया था। इससे हमारे देश की सारे विश्व में साख गिर रही थी और हमारे देश में निवेश की संभावनाओं पर विपरीत असर पड़ रहा था। आर्थिक सुधार और काले धन पर लगाम लगाने के लिए इस बिल को लाया तो गया, लेकिन आधा-अधूरा लाया गया। केवल 9 सैक्शन इसमें लाए गए। इसमें समुचित प्रावधानों की भारी कमी थी। उसमें बेनामी संव्यवहार को सही रूप से परिभाषित तक नहीं किया गया। दोषियों के खिलाफ सजा का कोई स्पष्ट प्रावधान नहीं था। इसमें बहुत ज्यादा छूट दी गई थी। पारिवारिक सदस्यों के रूप में इसमें स्प­ष्टता नहीं थी। इसके लिए कौन अधिकारी सक्षम होगा, जो नोटिस देगा, इसकी जांच करेगा और जांच करने के बाद निर्णय देगा और कौन-सा प्रशासनिक अधिकारी सम्पत्ति का अधिग्रहण करेगा या जब्त की गई सम्पत्ति का कौन प्रबंधन करेगा, इस तरीके का दूर-दूर तक कोई प्रावधान नहीं था। लोग इसमें प्रताड़ना से बचने के लिए कहां जाएंगे, इसके लिए अपील करने का भी कोई सशक्त प्रावधान इसमें नहीं था। सिविल कोर्ट की सख्तियों की भी व्याख्या नहीं थी और उसके क्रियान्वयन के बारे में स्थिति स्पष्ट नहीं थी।

          वर्ष 1988 से आश्चर्य का वि­षय यह है कि उस समय से लगातार इसमें कोई नियम नहीं बने। वर्ष  1988 से वर्ष 2011 में सरकार दोबारा इस बिल को लाई। जैसा वित्त मंत्री जी ने अपने वक्तव्य में भी कहा, इसमें संशोधन की बजाय विभाग यह कहता था कि इसमें नियम नहीं बनाए जा सकते, क्योंकि यह अधूरा एक्ट बना है। चाहिए तो यह था कि एक नया एक्ट बनाने की जगह उसी में संशोधन करते, लेकिन संशोधन करने के बजाय एक नया एक्ट लाया गया। नया एक्ट वर्ष 1988 के बिल की जगह लाया गया, इससे बहुत स्प­ट स्थिति आज है। हमारे कांग्रेस के मित्र सदन में नहीं हैं, अगर वे यहां होते तो जवाब देते कि उनकी मंशा देश में काले धन को संरक्षित करने की रही है। उनकी मंशा काले धन को संचित करने वालों को प्रोत्साहन देने की रही है, अन्यथा वर्ष 1988 के बाद अगस्त 2011 को नया बिल प्रस्तुत नहीं करते, क्योंकि नया बिल प्रस्तुत करने से उनकी मंशा स्पष्­ट हो गई थी कि जो बेनामी सम्पत्ति वाले लोग हैं, वर्ष 1988 से लेकर वर्ष 2011 तक उन्हें एकमुश्त छूट मिल जाएगी। उनकी मुक्तता के लिए यह नया बिल लाया गया था।

          श्रीमन, वर्ष  2011 में प्रस्तुत बिल यशवंत सिन्हा जी की कमेटी को सौंपा गया। उस कमेटी ने भी तमाम संशोधन करके अपनी सहमति दी और वह भी जून 2012 में दे दी थी। खड़गे साहब सदन में आ गए हैं। अब आश्चर्य की बात यह है कि जून 2012 के बाद सदन के दो सत्र उसी साल होने थे। वर्ष 2013 के चार सत्र सरकार को मिलते थे। ऐसी कौन-सी विवशता थी कि उस समिति की संस्तुतियों को आपने पास नहीं किया, क्योंकि उनकी मंशा पास करने की नहीं थी इसलिए उसे वैसा ही रखा। पारदर्शिता नहीं थी, ईमानदारी का अभाव था और कुछ लोगों को संरक्षण देने की स्पष्ट मंशा थी, अन्यथा यह बिल पास हो गया होता। मैं अपनी सरकार को बधाई देना चाहता हूं कि हमारी सरकार की पारदर्शिता, ईमानदारी, जनता के प्रति जवाबदेही, जिम्मेदार कार्यशैली तथा भ्र­ष्टाचार मुक्त भारत की संकल्पना को साकार करने की मंशा से 28 वर्ष लंबित पड़े इस बिल में संशोधन करने का निर्णय लिया और आज हम इस पर चर्चा करने के लिए यहां खड़े हैं।

15.00 hours           इस बिल में जो प्रावधान हैं, निश्चित रूप से जो कालाधन कमाने वाले हैं और देश को लूटने वाले हैं, पर शिकंजा कसने के लिए और उनको इस कानून के अंदर लाने के लिए यह व्यवस्था की गयी है, जो अपने आप में सशक्त है। मेरे एक साथी अभी चर्चा कर रहे थे, मुझे लगता है कि वे इस कानून की एक-एक धारा को वे पढ़ेंगे, तो वे इस बात से सहमत होंगे कि इससे सशक्त कौन-सा कानून लाया जा सकता है। इस संशोधन बिल को यदि देखा जाए, तो इसकी जो मूल धारा-दो के स्थान पर, जिसमें यह कहा गया था कि संव्यवहार की परिभाषा ही नहीं थी, बेनामी संव्यवहार की परिभा­षा नहीं थी।

          मैं यह कहना चाहता हूँ कि इस बिल की अध्याय 1 में (9)(अ) (क) में है, उसमें बेनामी संव्यवहार को परिभा­िषत किया गया है, वह बहुत ही साफ तरीके से इस ऐक्ट में आता है। नम्बर एक-

"बेनामी संव्यवहार " से-

(अ) कोई ऐसा संव्यवहार या ठहराव अभिप्रेत है,-

(क) जहाँ किसी व्यक्ति को संपत्ति का अंतरण किया जाता है या यह उसके द्वारा धारित की जाती है और उस संपत्ति के लिए प्रतिफल किसी अन्य व्यक्ति द्वारा उपलब्ध कराया गया है या संदत्त किया गया है; और (ख) जहाँ संपत्ति को, उस व्यक्ति के, जो प्रतिफल उपलब्ध कराता है, तुरंत या भावी, प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष, फायदे के लिए धारण किया जाता है, नम्बर दो-

किसी संपत्ति के संबंध में किसी कल्पित नाम से किया गया कोई संव्यवहार या ठहराव अभिप्रेत है;

 

जिस पर आप अभी चर्चा कर रहे थे। तीसरा, स्प­ष्ट परिभाषा है कि-

ऐसा कोई संव्यवहार या ठहराव, जहाँ सम्पत्ति के स्वामी को ऐसे स्वामित्व के बारे में कोई जानकारी नहीं है या वह ऐसे स्वामित्व की जानकारी होने से इंकार करता है।

 

चौथा, इसमें बहुत ही स्प­ष्ट परिभाषित किया गया है कि-

 

ऐसा कोई संव्यवहार या ठहराव, जहाँ प्रतिफल उपलब्ध कराने कराने वाले व्यक्ति का पता नहीं लग सकता है या वह कल्पित व्यक्ति है।

 

          श्रीमन्, जहाँ इसे स्प­ष्ट किया गया है कि ये बेनामी संपत्ति कौन-सी होगी, वहीं दूसरी ओर यह भी किया गया है, जिस पर बहुत विवाद हो रहा था कि पारिवारिक सम्पत्ति होगी, इस दिशा में परिवार के लोगों की, कुटुंब की, भारत की पारिवारिक संरचना पर कई सवाल खड़े हो सकते हैं।

इसमें बहुत साफ कहा गया है कि बेनामी संव्यवहार की परिभा­षा से अपवर्जित सम्पत्तियां इस प्रकार जो चिन्हित की गयी हैं, वह क्या हैं। हिन्दू अविभक्त कुटुम्ब की आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से अधिक सम्पत्तियां, जो किसी अविभक्त कुटुम्ब में किसी सहर्दिक द्वारा धारित की जाती हैं। दूसरा, किसी व्यक्ति या वैश्विक हैसियत में धारित सम्पत्तियां। तीसरा, किसी व्य­िष्ट द्वारा पत्नी के नाम या ऐसे व्य­िष्ट की किसी संतान के नाम से आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से अर्जित सम्पत्तियां और किसी व्य­िष्ट द्वारा आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से भाई या बहन या पारिवारिक पूर्व पुरु­ष या वंशज के नाम से संयुक्त स्वामित्व में अर्जित सम्पत्तियां। बहुत साफ कहा गया है कि जो बेनामी होंगे, वह कौन होंगे और जिन पर यह एक्ट लागू नहीं होगा, वह कौन होगा? 

          श्रीमन्, मैं यह समझता हूं कि श्री यशवंत सिन्हा की कमेटी ने भी यह महसूस किया था कि वर्ष 1988 का जो बिल था, वह इस दिशा में पूरी तरह से असफल रहा है, इसलिए इस बिल को बहुत अच्छे तरीके से लाया गया है। अभी जो चर्चा की गई कि इसमें किस-किस तरह से किया गया, प्रारंभिक अथोरिटी किया गया, अनुमोदित अधिकारी सुनिश्चित किया गया, प्रशासनिक आथोरिटी सुनिश्चित की गयी, निर्णय देने वाली अथोरिटी सुनिश्चित की गयी । चार स्तम्भों पर तंत्र की स्थापना की गयी, क्योंकि उस कमेटी ने भी यह कहा था कि इस तरीके का कोई तंत्र इस एक्ट में नहीं है, जो लोगों को सुने और उसको सुनिश्चित करे।

          मैं यह समझता हूं कि जिस तरीके से धारा-2 में प्रावधान किया गया है। इसी तरीके से दोषियों के खिलाफ दण्डात्मक कार्रवाई का है, उस बिल में कहीं भी दूर-दूर तक इसकी स्प­ष्टता नहीं थी। पुराने एक्ट में तीन साल की जो सजा थी, वर्तमान में उसको भी संशोधित किया गया है और उसमें एक साल से सात साल तक की सजा का प्रावधान है। इतना ही नहीं, सम्पत्ति का जो बाजारी मूल्य होगा, उस पर 25 प्रतिशत अर्थदण्ड लगाने का प्रावधान है। कोई बेनामी सम्पत्ति को अर्जित करने के बारे में सोच भी नहीं सकता है।

          अभी माननीय सदस्य कह रहे थे कि यदि कोई गलत सूचना देता है तो उसमें क्या प्रावधान हैं। गलत सूचना देने पर छः माह से पांच साल तक की न केवल सजा है, बल्कि सम्पूर्ण सम्पत्ति का बाजारी मूल्यांकन होगा और उसका दस प्रतिशत उस पर अर्थदण्ड लगेगा। इस संशोधन एक्ट में सक्षम अधिकारियों को सिविल कोर्ट की शक्तियां प्रदान किए जाने का प्रावधान है। जब्त की गयी सम्पत्ति का प्रबंधन और केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा आयकर अधिकारियों को प्रशासक नियुक्त करने की व्यवस्था है। पहले यह सब नहीं था कि कौन उसको जब्त करेगा, यदि जब्त करेगा तो वह भारत सरकार में निहित होगी या राज्य सरकार में होगी या किसी संस्था में होगी। यदि होगी तो उसका संचालन कौन करेगा, प्रबंधन कौन करेगा, यह सब उसमें नहीं था। अब इसमें बहुत ही स्पष्­ट व्यवस्था है। अपीलीय कोर्ट की व्यवस्था है। संसदीय वित्त समिति ने जिस बात को महसूस किया था कि यदि लोग परेशान होते हैं कि वह कहां अपील करेंगे तो इसमें बहुत स्पष्ट कर दिया गया है और अपीलीय प्राधिकरण की स्थापना की गयी है। इसमें यह भी कहा गया है कि यदि किसी को लगता है कि वहां उसको ठीक से नहीं सुना गया है तो वह क्षेत्रीय हाई कोर्ट में भी अपील कर सकता है।

          इसलिए मैं समझता हूं कि हमारी पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही में विश्व स्तर पर इस कानून को लाए हैं, निश्चित रूप से मैं कह सकता हूं कि इससे काले धन पर प्रतिबंध लगेगा। जो लोग काले धन के माध्यम से बेनामी सम्पत्ति अर्जित कर रहे हैं, जो देश को लूट रहे हैं, उनकी मंशा पर गहरी चोट होगी। यही कारण है कि हमारी सरकार की विश्व स्तर पर विश्वसनीयता बढ़ी है और उसी का परिणाम है कि आज एफडीआई में पूरी दुनिया में भारत नंबर-1 पर है। आज भारत में 63 अरब डॉलर एफडीआई निवेश हो रहा है, वहीं अमेरिका में 59 अरब डॉलर का निवेश हो रहा है। हमने अमेरिका को भी एफडीआई निवेश में पीछे छोड़ दिया है। यह हमारी सरकार की विश्वसनीयता है।

          आज इसी भाव से कि जब यह बिल आज पास होगा तो हिन्दुस्तान में एक नई करवट होगी, एक नया इतिहास होगा। बेईमानी और भ्र­ष्टाचार दूर-दूर तक कोई करने का साहस नहीं करेगा। इसलिए मैं अपने वित्त मंत्री जी, अपने प्रधान मंत्री जी और सरकार को बहुत सारी बधाई देता हूं कि जिस चीज की संकल्पना उन्होंने की थी, आज उस कानून को लाकर देश के सामने प्रस्तुत किया है और इसमें पारदर्शिता लाकर हिंदुस्तान को सशक्त करने की दिशा में एक बहुत महत्वपूर्ण कड़ी की स्थापना हुई है। इसके लिए मैं माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी को बहुत-बहुत बधाई देता हूं। धन्यवाद।

 

SHRI M. UDHAYAKUMAR (DINDIGUL): Hon. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to our beloved leader hon. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Puratchi Thalaivi Amma for giving this opportunity. Our Amma is taking charge as a Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for the sixth time and in the second consecutive time. She is a people’s leader. That is why, we often say her “Our Amma” for giving this opportunity to speak on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015.

          The Bill seeks to amend the Benami Transactions Act, 1988. The Act prohibits benami transactions and provides for confiscating benami properties.

          The Bill seeks to amend the definition of benami transactions; establish adjudicating authorities and an Appellate Tribunal to deal with benami transactions; and specify the penalty for entering into benami transactions. 

          The Bill amends this definition to add other transactions which qualify as benami, such as property transactions where the transaction is made in a fictitious name. The owner is not aware of it or denies knowledge of the ownership of the property or the person providing the consideration for the property is not traceable.

          The Bill also specifies certain cases which will be exempted from the definition of a benami transaction. These include cases when a property is held by a member of a Hindu undivided family, and is being held for his or another family member’s benefit, and has been provided for or paid off from sources of that family; a person in a fiduciary capacity; a person in the name of his spouse or child and the property has been paid for from them person’s income.

          The Standing Committee on Finance after examining the written submissions and hearing the views of the Ministry, institutions, experts and State Governments on the Bill find that there are key issues, concern areas and certain operational difficulties which are required to be squarely addressed before the Bill is enacted.

          In the exception to benami transaction as laid down in Section 2(1) of the Principal Act -- (Section 4(9)(i), (iii) and (iv) of the proposed Bill, -- the expression“out of known sources of income” should be replaced by “out of known sources” so as to bring clarity in cases where loan funds which are not income, are used as consideration for purchase of a property and not be kept out of the purview of the Bill. Further, the words ‘and legal’ may also be inserted after ‘known’ so as to safeguard genuine and bona fide transactions. The Government has accepted this recommendation of the Committee.

          It has to be ensured that any bona fide transaction should not be deemed  as ‘benami’, when it involves transfer of immoveable property entered into under (i) a registered agreement to sale (ii) a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA), and (iii) a registered Development Agreement on payment of stamp duty in accordance with law applicable thereto.

          According to this Bill, a benami property shall not be re-transferred by the benamidar, a person who is holding the property to the beneficial owner, who provided the consideration for the transaction or any person representing him. If the benami property is re-transferred, it is considered void.   However, in the Amendment Bill, it is said that, if the benami property is disclosed as part of the income disclosure scheme of the Finance Act, 2016, then the corresponding provisions of the Bill will not be applicable.

          In a federal set-up like India where land is a State subject, it would be deemed appropriate that the rights of confiscated benami properties vest with State Governments instead of the Central Government has recommended to the Government to re-examine this aspect in the light of the Constitutional provisions.

          The Bill seeks to establish four authorities to conduct inquiries or investigations regarding benami transactions: (i) Initiating Officer, (ii) Approving Authority, (iii) Administrator and (iv) Adjudicating Authority.

          The Standing Committee has observed that it should be ensured that the provisions of the Bill are not in conflict with the provisions of the existing Tribal Land Acts administered by States in Tribal Areas and Scheduled Areas specified under the Constitution.  Ground realities in these specified areas should thus be considered and duly factored in.  The amendment Bill is likely to have very serious impact in rural areas, where because of large number of cash transactions and poor state of land records, even genuine land owners may find it difficult to establish their titles records being non-traceable.  As a precaution, therefore, a thorough and serious inquiry by the Initiating Officer becomes essential before the matter goes to the Adjudicating Authority.  The time taken for such inquiry should, therefore, be extended from the proposed period of thirty days to thirty months.  This would give the affected person adequate time to prove that she/he is the genuine owner of the property in question.  I hope this recommendation by the Standing Committee has been incorporated in the Amendment Bill.

          The Bill seeks to change the penalty to rigorous imprisonment of one year upto seven years, and a fine which may extend to 25 per cent of the fair market value of the benami property.  Certain sessions courts would be designated as Special Courts for trying any offences which are punishable under the Bill.

          Time limit for disposing of the appeal by an Appellate Tribunal, say within 2 years from the date of filing of the appeal, should be fixed in the Bill.  Any increase in this period should be an exception, made only at the instance of the High Court on an application made by the Tribunal.

          The Standing Committee has observed that the provisions of the proposed Bill are silent on the extra territoriality, where the transacting persons standing in fiduciary capacity, benamidar, beneficial owner or the property are situated or located abroad.  Similarly, the provisions are also silent on the role of whistle-blowers and their protection, which would be important to detect benami holdings.  Adequate provisions in this regard should be incorporated in the Bill.

          In the proposed Bill, the appointment of the Adjudicating Authority has been prescribed in clause 9; however, no such mechanism has been provided for appointment of the Initiating Officer and the Approving Authority. The proposed Bill may therefore be restructured by inserting a Chapter on Authorities on the lines of Income Tax Act, wherein Chapter XIII provides for appointment and control, jurisdiction and power of such Authorities so as to have greater clarity and avoid legal hassles.

          In clause 32, for qualification for appointment of Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal,“experience as a High Court Judge for a period of at least five years” may be inserted with a view to having the services of experienced judges. This has been accepted and incorporated in this amendment Bill.

          A provision is needed to be inserted in the proposed Bill for right to representation for a person preferring an appeal before the Adjudicating Authority as provided under clause 48 of the Bill for preferring an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

          The crux of the whole problem of benami transactions lies in transactions being recorded in the names of persons who are not the beneficial owners. To pre-empt and eliminate this, the Committee has desired that certain consequential amendments in the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 and Registration Act, 1908 should be made, particularly making mandatory online registration of all immovable properties, linkage of Aadhar number and PAN number of al the parties to the transaction and sharing of data by the Registration Authorities with the Central agencies like Income Tax Department.

          Stress should be laid on digitalisation of land record and its regular updation. Efforts should be made to deal with the problem systematically to the extent possible without needless discretionary intrusions. There should be complete co-ordination and intelligence sharing between different agencies such as Income Tax, Excise, Customs, Police, Banks, Stock Exchanges, Regulators such as SEBI and RBI, and investigative agencies such as CBI, ED, and SFIO. This aspect should be adequately reflected in the Bill.

          The Committee was of the view that this Bill should not become another coercive instrument in the hands of the Central Revenue Department to forcibly collect or mobilise taxes, as the existing Income Tax Act had adequate provisions and teeth to deal with issues such as tax evasion and unaccounted income or wealth. The Committee believed that multiplicity of authorities should not be created and the existing set up could be utilised for this purpose. The need of the hour is to exercise the existing powers judiciously and in a credible manner.

          The Finance Minister in his Budget Speech 2015 had stated the purpose of the Bill was to curb the generation of domestic black money. However, the Standing Committee found that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill was silent over that significant aspect. The intent of the Government should therefore be clearly mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill. It is also necessary that prevention of corruption and tracking of tainted money are also added as supplementary objects of the Bill.

          With these words, I conclude my speech. Thank you for the opportunity.

                                               

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE (SREERAMPUR): Hon. Speaker Sir, the Bill which has come up is the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill. In clause 3, you say, “This Act may be called the prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.” This is what you want to do. Why are you not bringing in a new Bill? Why have you brought this amendment Bill?  If the title of the Bill goes, like the ‘Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988’ why are you amending a Bill titled Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, which is further to amend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988?  You are trying to bring new things into the old Act.  If that is so, why are you not replacing it with a completely new Act itself.  Through you I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Finance Minister.  It is also a great privilege to have the hon. Law Minister here.  It is all the time my privilege whenever both of them are in the House.

          The Standing Committee of Finance in Part-II of its 28th Report had exactly recommended for bringing a new Bill itself.  There is a total change of characters.  What is the requirement of it?  Let us see the object behind it.  We have heard the speech of the hon. Finance Minister in 2015 regarding stopping of black money.  The main thrust was whether these transactions are made through a backdoor process or through the black money.  Today, if I have white money and if I transfer a property to anyone, it is not benami.  Benami is having the money whose source has not been disclosed and cannot be disclosed because it is earned out of illegal activities.  The property purchased out of such transactions is called in different names and it is called benami.  I have a little experience about that.

          In 1989 I purchased a second-hand car.  The car was given to me but the owner said that he would give the documents etc. after a few days.  I believed him for that.  For two years I was not given those documents and in 1991 that car was stolen by someone.  In the competent court naturally the owner has to apply for seized car.  I had to take the help of the Police Commissioner.  Ultimately it was found that the gentleman who was owner of  the car was staying in a remote village of Bihar.  He was the owner’s domestic servant.  This is the example of a benami property and this has to be stopped.

          I now come to Clause 9 of the Bill.  It says: 

“ (a) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman or a member of the Adjudicating Authority unless he has been a member of the Indian Revenue Service and has held the post of Commissioner of Income-tax or equivalent post in that Service;

 

The Chairperson or other Members of the Adjudicating Authority shall be appointed by the Central Government.

 

The Central Government shall appoint the senior-most Member to be the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority.”   How can you distinguish the seniority?  Seniority can be distinguished within the same cadre.  How can you distinguish between the seniority of an income tax officer and a district judge?

          As regards income tax tribunal matters, constitutional bench judgement on Chennai  matter, you know that if the power is not vested where the judicial officer is and it is given to the administrative officer, then it would be ultra vires.  One has to ensure who the Chairman would be.  When a person from judiciary is there, maybe of district level, then why are you going for an administrative officer? 

          I would like to know as to why the Department of Revenue is included everywhere.  The Income Tax Officer will run after the persons.  In our country, they are the most failed persons.  Only three per cent people pay income tax in our country.  The Income Tax Officer will run after those who are paying income tax.  Those who are not paying tax, they will never touch them.  If I have to pay advance tax and if I remain in Parliament continuously for three months, then I would get a notice as to why the advance tax is less.  But those who are not paying taxes at all, they are never caught by the Income Tax Officers.  This is the situation. I would say that instead of Revenue Officers, it should be somebody else because income tax is not the main question here.  The question of property is here.  

          Under clause 30, you have created an appellate tribunal to hear such appeals.  With great respect, I would like to ask where the provision for preferring an appeal is.  First, there must be a provision to prefer an appeal.  If an appeal is preferred, in how many days it should be preferred.  The Bill is silent on that.  This provision cannot be made in the rules but it has to be made in the statute itself.  If an order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority, kindly consider giving power to the Appellate Tribunal to pass an interlocutory order.  Otherwise, everything would be frustrated.  Ultimately, when the final appeal would be heard by the High Court, then everything would go.  A person should be given justice.  One can see that it is benami and one may not see that it is benami.  One may suffer from victimisation also.  Therefore, this power should be given and certain protection should be given against the order itself.  Clause 30 says that the Central Government shall by notification establish an Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals but where is the provision that there is a right of appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority.

          Then time limit is not there but in the case of the High Court appeal, there is a time limit of 60 days.  I will request that in the Bill itself you give the power to the Appellate Authority to pass an interlocutory order.

          Sir, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has submitted a Report in which they have highlighted a ground reality. The ground reality is that in the rural areas lands are purchased in cash and it is being done for decades together. In the rural areas and in case of illiterate persons it is very difficult to find the land deeds etc. So far as the rural areas are concerned, the poor people are concerned, those who have purchased the property, in their cases if the deeds are not available, then care should be taken to see that those properties are not brought within the scope and ambit of this Act. Therefore, I would like to request the hon. Finance Minister to give thrust on the aspect whether the property is purchased or acquired by reason of any undisclosed money or tainted money. Apart from that, if the property is not bought by tainted money, or money from undisclosed sources, then those properties should not be brought within the scope and ambit of this Act.

          Sir, I must say that a number of mechanisms have been created in this Bill. But I would like the hon. Finance Minister to have a re-think on this. I can make a request to him. The hon. Finance Minister has given a completely new thought which I appreciate excepting certain points which I have already pointed out. I appreciate the intention of this Bill. I appreciate the mechanisms that you have created through this Bill. I have no doubt that that. But since he has given a new thought over the entire thing, it is better to bring in a completely new code itself giving details of everything.

          Sir, with these words, I conclude.

          Thank you.

SHRI  LADU KISHORE SWAIN (ASKA): Hon. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this Bill. I rise to speak on the Benami Transactions Prohibition (Amendment) Bill, 2015.

          The Bill has been brought in to curb the nuisance of illegal transactions that have been plaguing our country. We are all aware that most of the black money generated domestically is due to property dealings and similar such real estate transactions. This Bill deals with it and adds the provision of penalizing those who indulge in such unlawful activities.

          Culturally Indians accept what you term as “Benami” now as part of their normal lives. From the days of Zamindars, transactions concerning land holdings have always been executed in the names of different beneficiaries who may or may not be related to the primary money spender.

          Sadly, this Bill does into take into account such different cultural compulsions existing in different parts of the country. For example, India has both Matriarchal and Patriarchal norms and fashion of land holdings and they greatly vary in such areas. 

          This Bill seems to be prepared hurriedly and by someone who does not have a thorough understanding about the culture relating to land ownership in the countryside.  For instance, the Indian Judiciary is burdened with excessive number of civil cases which are way above 70 per cent of total litigations in courts that relate to land dispute and ownership.  Similarly, a majority of convicts are sentenced to life imprisonment and probably all prisoners across India are implicated in crimes committed to possession of land.

          There are a few observations that I have to make  regarding this Bill.

          I strongly object to Section 8 of the Bill.  This Bill has the provision to seize benami property and hand it over to the Central Government.  This is against the core spirit of federalism since land is a State subject. 

          Sir, I want to draw your attention that this Government has been making points in favour of cooperative federalism as Mantra for development.  Hence, I want the hon. Minister to give a clarification to this august House. Why this provision has been put in and what is the rationale behind this provision?

          Further Section 4, clause 9, changes the very definition of benami transactions.  It now seeks to make property which is registered under the name of person ‘A’ but consideration paid by person ‘B’ as ‘benami’.  I would like to thank the Government for taking into consideration the suggestions of the Committee and adding ‘family members’ as exceptions.

          However, there is a small flaw here.  In exceptions, you have included spouse and children as exceptions for such illegal transactions.  I would suggest adding ‘daughter-in-law’ and ‘son-in-law’ as well.  This should be allowed.

          The Standing Committee has given its Report and this Bill reflects a lot of changes that were suggested.  But there are still questions regarding whether or not we need a new Bill for dealing with benami transactions.

          I would like to have a clarification from the Minister on whether passing this Bill would lead to conflict with the Income Tax Act, 1961 and his thoughts on why these provisions cannot be simply included in the Income Tax Act itself.

          Sir, I would like to conclude by reminding the assurance given by the Government in bringing back black money from abroad and stop such benami transactions domestically as well.  Just to cite one example, as of 20th August, 2016, under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, more than Rs. 40,000 crore has been deposited.  We feel proud of it.   However, after cases like Malya, we are suspicious that these deposited money, as savings of the poor and sundry, may be cheated by these shrewd and fraudulent ones.  Are we not giving scope to produce crores of benami transactors?  It is because close to six crore accounts have zero balance out of 22.6 crore accounts opened so far.

          Hence, my Party feels that this is an incomplete and haphazard Bill which needs to be relooked even though the Standing Committee has already scrutinized it.  I believe that this is a delicate subject which needs further thought.

                                                                                     

DR. RAVINDRA BABU (AMALAPURAM): Sir, I thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak on a very important and crucial financial piece of legislation which is to curb black money.

I congratulate the hon. Finance Minister especially for bringing about this Bill. 

          Sir, this Act has been in vogue since 1988, and since then the parent Act has been enacted. After that, this is the amendment to that Act in 2016.  I would like to ask the hon. Finance Minister as to what has happened in between.  Has the parent Act been able to hook any of the benami transactions?  Could you catch hold of any of the benami transactions or benamdaries? Have any such people been caught?  Particularly this year, one Income Declaration Scheme has been launched.   Under that Scheme, 45 per cent of the property value can be declared and 45 per cent of the tax can be paid and the property can be re-transferred to the benamidar.  So, that was the provision made in that Declaration Scheme. I feel that if the Bill is brought when that Declaration Scheme is in vogue, then it will contradict each other. It will create confusion whether that will gain precedence over this or this will prevail upon that. I have no idea about that. The Finance Minister may kindly like to clarify that.

          They have, for the first time, appointed Initiating Officer, Approving Authority, Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Tribunal. These four officers are there. All of them are drawn from Income Tax Department. This Bill is talking about benami property. Benami property includes movable, immovable, tangible and intangible. We can understand immovable property. It is like land, etc. We can understand movable property, which are goods and other things. We can understand intangible, which are services, etc. How can the Income Tax officers catch hold of those hawala transactions? How will they have control over the black money which is going out of the country? I have a doubt over this.

          Income Tax Department alone cannot deal with this. There may be so many Acts to deal with such actions, like hawala, etc. The NDPS Act is there; the Enforcement Directorate is there; and the PMLA is there to deal with such a situation. Actually there is a joke, India’s benami is Switzerland, and Switzerland is a benami for India. All accumulated money, ill-gotten wealth, from India is being deposited in Switzerland.

स्विटजरलैंड इंडिया के लिए बेनामी है, सैल कंपनी होता है, कुछ कंपनी इसलिए खोला जाता है कि यहां से पैसा निकाल कर एक्सपोर्ट और इम्पोर्ट के जरिए पैसे का रिसाइक्लाइजेशन होता है। इसे हवाला ट्रांक्जैक्शन को भी इसमें लागू करना चाहिए था। टांजिबल और इनटांजिबल में कवर करना चाहिए था। इन्फोर्समेंट डॉयरोक्टरेट हवाला ट्रांक्जैक्शन कन्फिक्सेशन करता है उसके साथ इसे जोड़ना चाहिए था। 

          The Customs and Excise Department which is there to see the over invoicing of exports and under invoicing of imports, through which money gets circulated through various means, should also have been integrated so that the black money menace is tackled and the progenitor of the black money, from where the black money is generated can be curbed. We can curb it at the root level.

          As our Prime Minister always says, for any country to progress economically or socially, character is more important. The national character is more important. The people who are embezzling the money, who do illegal transactions in a benami way – pseudonymous, anonymous – are nothing but unpatriots. They are actually traitors of the country. They are anti-nationals and they should be hanged to death because they are causing a lot of damage to the country and they are causing damage to the country’s reputation also.

          Our Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, always says a country cannot progress without character. These money transactions which are happening illegally reflects how much of bad characters we have. Just imagine the kind of money that is embezzled. It is estimated that every year almost Rs. 20 lakh crore, which we generate as direct taxes, indirect taxes, State taxes, etc., is being embezzled. These are unofficial estimates. The Finance Minister is more well versed with all these things. He must be knowing about it better than me.

          So, what I feel is that this Bill is well intended. But what I feel is that this should be integrated with the hawala, customs, drugs, etc. There is another Act, NDPS Act which deals with drugs. That is the root through which money comes out of illegal trading of drugs.

          All these things put together, the Bill should have an integrated approach, an integrated law to deal with the menace of black money of the country, which is afflicting the country. We should take all these Acts together, and make a comprehensive law to stop black money once and for all. Jai Hindi and Jai Telugu Desam, Sir.

SHRI SANKAR PRASAD DATTA (TRIPURA WEST): Hon. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015. The very name of the Bill is `Benami Transactions’. On behalf of CPI(M), we want that benami transactions in the case of property should be totally stopped in our country. This type of law was there earlier. Now, our Government is interested to bring some amendments in the Act but still we are thinking that some loopholes are there in the Act. Hence, we strongly demand that benami transactions should be stopped in the real sense of the term in our country.

          For that, the Standing Committee on Finance has recommended some amendments. Their thinking, suggestions and recommendations on the Bill to some extent is related to our thinking. If we go through the intention of the Bill, we can find firstly, the definition of `benami transactions’; secondly, it is trying to establish adjudicating authorities and appellate tribunals to deal with benami transactions; and thirdly, specifying the penalties for entering into benami transactions. All these three intentions are good. If we look at the Income Tax Act, 1961, there are adequate provisions to deal with issues of tax evasion.  Persons who are engaged in benami transactions are those who wanted to hide their income, not to pay taxes to the Exchequer of the country. This has been provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Why should we have another law? These loopholes should be plugged. There is some problem in the amendment. Sometimes an individual can purchase the land for the sake of the family and he may sincerely, honestly gift it to other persons. In that  case, what would happen has not described in the amendment? This loophole should be plugged.

          Sir, it is stated here that the confiscated properties will be vested with the Central Government. But in our Constitution, land is a State subject. So, the property which will be confiscated should not go to the Centre, but that should go to the concerned State Government. This should be included in the amendment.

          Then, for initiating and completion of the cases, there should be a fixed time limit. Otherwise, the relation between the authority and the person who does the benami transaction would not serve the purpose of this Bill, but it would serve the purpose of the person who does the benami transaction. So, a specific time limit should be there by which time the case should be concluded.

          Sir, for furnishing information about land, only 30 days time has been given. I think this time for furnishing information can be extended so that it would help the people who are inclined to do this.

          Then, in the era of digitalisation, it should be integrated with Aadhaar or PAN Card and through this, we can stop benami transactions. So, digitalisation should be included in the amendment.

          Sir, why are benami transactions going on in our country? It is stated that Rs. 8.5 lakh crore of black money is there both inside and outside our country. Benami transactions are taking place only to create black money, to keep the black money, for political purposes and also for creating election fund of political parties. These days, our political leaders are also involved in benami transactions in our country. If the political parties and political leaders keep away from benami transactions and not use black money for political purposes, then only benami transactions can be stopped in this country. We hope that this Bill becomes a very strong law which can stop benami transactions in the true sense of the term.

          With these words, I conclude.

16.00 hours SHRI KONDA VISHWESHWAR REDDY (CHEVELLA): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity.

          Sir, the amendment proposed brings about comprehensive changes in the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Essentially, I think, it expands the definition of benami transactions, establishes an Adjudicating Authority and an Appellate Tribunal. It also increases the penalty for those indulging in benami transactions. So, effectively it casts a larger net, it creates an Appellate Authority and has a bigger sword hanging on the heads of those indulging in benami transactions. So, we welcome this step and, on behalf of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti we support this Bill.

          However, I think this is one subject in which I and my fellow MPs from the Telangana Rashtra Samiti can proudly say that we are not experts in this subject.

          Last evening, when we were discussing this subject, we were trying to find out what is the English equivalent of this benami transaction.  We could not find an English equivalent. So, we concluded, may be this is something unique and prevalent more in India than in any other country.

          I was wondering why the benami transactions are so prevalent.  I think, it is obvious that one is to hide wealth earned from undisclosed sources or to circumvent certain land ceiling laws.  I have exhausted my ceiling, so I will buy in a benami name. 

In Karnataka, especially, hon. MP, Shri Muddahanume Gowda mentioned that certain agricultural lands can only be bought by farmers.  So, if I am a trader and not a farmer, I circumvented by buying on a poor farmer’s name.  It is also to bypass some conflict of interest cases.  For example, a State Government land allocated for an industry, if I am the allocating officer, I will allocate it to my family members through a benami name.  It is also to hide our previous defaults and previous criminal transactions.  We hear about chit fund frauds and others.  He does a chit fund fraud in this city.  He changes his name and the name of his company and does a chit fund fraud in some other city. 

          We were also curious what aids or what facilitates benami transactions.  I think, Ravindra Babu garu had mentioned this, the hon. MP from Andhra Pradesh, it is not just benami, it is facilitated by something else. Of course, it is the black money, it is hawala and yes, certain loopholes in Stamps and Registration Act wherein we can actually buy an expensive property without actually paying the consideration.  The buyer will write a cheque, the seller will take the cheque and it will be in sale deed but the cheque will never be encashed.  It would not be submitted and never be encashed.

          There is also a big difference between the actual value and the Government official prices.  But most importantly, I think, some of the ID standards – it is very good that for persons we do have Aadhaar Card – but how do we identify properties?  We do not have good identification and valuation of properties and entities.  They are not only bought by individuals but they are also bought by benami companies. I think, these are very essential things.

          So, by this Act alone, however well it is implemented, I do not think, we can eliminate benami transactions.  We need a gamut of reforms and we need those that will eliminate these factors that will aid and facilitate benami transactions.  I am glad the Finance Minister and the Government has taken this into cognizance and the Government is simultaneously taking a series of systematic steps and reforms.  What are these steps?  It is not just this Bill in isolation.  It is so many other Bills, the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act, the Aadhaar Bill, amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Income Declaration Scheme which is recently launched.  All these, in conjunction with this, I think, can be a tough measure against prevention of benami transactions. I wish the Government well in this endeavour.   

          I discovered one unique thing.  Everywhere benami transactions are defined as predicate offences, which proceeds from other criminal activities, is used for benami transactions. So, benami transactions are usually the result of other larger criminal offences like smuggling, trafficking or may be corruption and racketeering and so on.  But not all benami transactions are predicate offences.  There is a whole clause of benami transactions where the benami transaction itself is a primary crime.  For example, the Government allocates a land to a particular industry and the allocating authority gives it to his own family through a benami name.  So, benami transaction is used to hide black money generally but in this case it is used to create illegal wealth.  So, we have to distinguish these benami transactions as predicate offences and benami transactions as primary crimes.  

This also brings us to a yet another very important issue. I think the Standing Committee also mentioned this.  If a State Government land is allotted to an ineligible beneficiary through a benami transaction, as in many cases, then can it be confiscated by the Central Government or should it go back to the State Government?  To complicate the matters further, if the benami transaction is under investigation and it is being heard by the appellate authority and, at the same time, a GO allocating this land is cancelled, by cancelling the GO, it will go to the State Government.  But the verdict of the appellate authority would be that it will go to the Central Government.  It creates a legal ambiguity and a potential Centre-State conflict. 

The Standing Committee report also touches on this subject without mentioning what land.  I submitted an amendment.   In benami transactions, where it is predicate offence, the land should go to the Central Government.  Benami transactions where the State Government land was illegally allocated to somebody, to favour somebody, then it should go back to the State Government.  I think that is fair because in the first case I agree with the Finance Minister because a lot of time it is an income tax evasion.  If it is an income tax evasion and the benami transaction is caught, then it should go to the Central Government.  If it is corruption at the Central Government, then, I think, the land in the benami transaction should go back to the Central Government. 

As in the case of IMG-Barath – that is in Hyderabad in my constituency – 850 acres of land was allocated at Rs. 50,000 at throwaway price to some beneficiary.  I think, there is a stay order; I do not know the current State.  But, should this land be declared as a benami transaction?  Why should the State of Telangana land go to the Central Government?  It should go back to the State of Telangana. 

          There are so many such cases.  It affects not only the State of Telangana, it affects all the States.  But, here, it is much more because in Hyderabad there are much more Government lands.  There are seven lakh acres of Government lands much more than Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai put together.  This is because of historic reason.  The district surrounding Hyderabad city is called the Atraf-I-Balda district.  It is also calledSarf-e-Khas land which is the private property of the Nizam.  After Independence, this land vested with the then State of Hyderabad and later it was vesting with the State of Andhra Pradesh and now with the State of Telangana.  What started as seven lakh acres, now when the State of Telangana is formed, we hardly have less than one lakh acres.  Where did the six lakh acres go?  We believe, it is through benami transactions and wrongly allocations by the previous Governments to ineligible people.  If this land is declared benami land, it should come back.  I think, this is one of the reasons.  There is another reason.  We are having protest by the lawyers for a separate High Court. I think, they are attributing this reason as to why Andhra Government does not want a separate High Court. It is because, which Government will want a High Court in the neighbour State?  Will it benefit the poor people to cross the border and go to the neighbouring State?  Everybody would want the High Court in the same State.  This is one of the reasons that Andhra Pradesh Government probably does not want it.  Only a few rich people want the High Court in Andhra Pradesh to protect their illegal and benami lands.  The Government needs to look into this.

          One more area which is very susceptible to benami transactions is repatriated land.  Another area is directors of infrastructure companies and directors of steel plants.  The real owners are somebody. The director is his cook and his driver.  They have taken huge loans from the banks and the defaulters are not the real owners.  It is the cooks and the drivers.  So, I think, this is one more area we need to look into.  Some of these are not predicate crimes.  So, we need to distinguish them separately and take actions against the real owners; 90 per cent of the shareholding belongs to the families. 

          We also need to take cognisance of the Standing Committee Report saying that the investigation by the initiating officer should be completed within a specific time frame.  It is better if time frame is mentioned.

          Then, how do we detect benami transactions?  The Income Tax Department is doing a great job.  Income tax collections have gone up this year and year after year.  They are using information technology.  However, information technology has some problems when applied to detecting benami transactions.

We have Aadhar card and PAN card.  That is good. The computers can detect it but the computers do not know that in survey number so and so, the land is Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 50 crore per acre. So, land identification, land valuation and location codes should be there.  Many countries have location codes. Our country does not have this code.  So, standardisation of information relating to land deeds is to be done.  Many members have also mentioned about the digitization of land records. Thank you for the opportunity.  I have given an amendment. I would request the hon. Minister to consider my amendment.

SHRI Y.V. SUBBA REDDY (ONGOLE): Sir, I thank you for permitting me to speak on this Bill which is one of the series of Bills the Government is bringing to clean black money which is pumped into illegal wealth of the country. I welcome this Bill. The Bill, in short, has three main areas. One is the definition of ‘benami transactions’, the second one is setting up of Appellate Tribunal and other adjudicating authorities and the third one deals with penal provisions.

          It is good that the Bill has clearly mentioned as to who constitutes Benami transaction and which property is a Benami property.  It is also good that the hon. Minister is bringing this legislation to effectively prohibit benami transactions. But the hon. Minister is equally aware that ground reality is entirely different. In spite of having so many legislations, people with malign intention are finding loopholes and elbowroom in circumventing laws through unfair practices. There is no doubt that you have Inquiry Authority, adjudicating authority, Appellate Tribunal, High Court, etc. But, are you not making, by giving them too many opportunities going from one authority to another and ultimately helping them to prolong dispute. So, I feel that whoever finds guilty of benami transactions be given one or two opportunities, or, at the most they be allowed up to Appellate Authority. It is only then the outcome will be quick and disputes will be resolved early.

          The second point I wish to make is this. Now, the Government has opened income declaration scheme and it is likely to be open up to September this year. So, if a person declares his benami properties and transactions under Income Declaration Scheme, will he get immunity under this Bill? It is a big question which is lingering in the minds of many people. So, I request the hon. Minister to give a clarification on this point.

          I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to a very important and negative impact of the Benami Act which is causing great harm and injustice to those members of the Indian families, particularly the elderly ones, be it father or mother or elder brother or sister who bona fide provide funds while buying an immovable property in the name of a close blood relation, be it son or daughter or younger brother but lost all rights in them after sometime. It is a normal practice in the Indian families, particularly Hindu families, which may not be technically HUFs, where elders contribute substantial funds out of their PF, gratuity, lifelong savings even if the immovable property is purchased in the name of a younger member of the family under a genuine impression that they will also have a right in the property as well as a right to live in them. But, legally, they will not have any right. So, here, they are not only losing their right to live in such property but also their hard-earned money in the absence of their name as joint owners. The present Bill under clause 2(9)(iv) partially addresses this issue. The clause says:

“any person in the name of his brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendant, where the names of brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendent and the individual appear as joint-owners in any document, and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of income of the individual. ”             I want the hon. Minister to show some way out to this problem and ensure that justice is done to those members of family who provided funds while buying an immovable property.  So, I request the hon. Minister to bring an official amendment in such genuine transactions even in case of non-HUF families where name of elder member of the family, who has partly or fully paid for the property, does not occur as joint owner.

          Sir, clause 19 of the Bill deals with powers given to authorities.  This clause 19(1) clearly says that authorities shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court.  Sir, if powers are given to the executive, we know what will happen.  The corruption will go up and inspector raj will be back. 

          So, I request the hon. Minister to look into this clause once again and remove the power given to the authorities.

          Finally, penalties prescribed are strong enough, and I welcome them.

          With these submissions, I support the Bill and request the hon. Minister to look into the points raised by me and address them to a logical conclusion.

 

श्री प्रहलाद सिंह पटेल (दमोह) :  उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, आपने मुझे इस महत्वपूर्ण विषय पर बोलने का मौका दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपका आभार व्यक्त करता हूं।

          सबसे पहले मैं प्रधानमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी को और वित्त मंत्री जी को व्यक्तिगत रूप से बधाई देना चाहता हूं कि एक महत्वपूर्ण बिल लेकर वे आए हैं। वैसे तो सदन में जो भी बिल रखे जाते हैं, वे सभी अपने आप में बहुत महत्वपूर्ण होते हैं। किसी व्यक्ति के जीवन में जब वह राजनीतिक और सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता बनता है तो उसके जीवन का लक्ष्य होता है कि वह किन बातों के लिए काम करना चाहता है। मैं अटल जी के समय 9वीं लोक सभा का सदस्य बना था। तब मेरी बहुत छोटी उम्र थी। हम लोग गांव से आए हैं, किसान के बेटे हैं और हमारी आय का दूसरा कोई साधन नहीं है, इसलिए इस काले धन पर और बेनामी सम्पत्ति पर हम जैसे लोगों का चिंतित होना बहुत जरूरी है।

          मैं सार्वजनिक तौर पर भाषणों में कहता हूं कि यदि काला धन और बेनामी सम्पत्ति का जाल खत्म नहीं होगा तो ईमानदार तथा मध्यमवर्गीय आदमी चुनावी राजनीति नहीं कर सकता है। राजनीति लोग कर सकते हैं, संगठन की राजनीति कर सकते हैं, साथ मिलकर राजनीति कर सकते हैं, लेकिन चुनावी राजनीति नहीं कर सकते हैं। मैं सरकार को इसी वजह से बधाई दे रहा हूं। मैं ऐसे अवसरों पर बोलना अपना सौभाग्य समझता हूं। बेनामी सम्पत्ति किसे कहते हैं, मैं नहीं मानता कि इसे सदन का कोई सदस्य न जानता हो। मैं सरकार को इसलिए बधाई दूंगा, क्योंकि इसका टाइटल बदला है। हमारे कुछ मित्र कह रहे थे कि नाम बदलने से क्या होता है। नाम बदलने से ही मंशा जाहिर होती है कि हम क्या करना चाहते हैं। मैंने प्रधानमंत्री जी को बधाई दी है तो इसलिए नहीं दी है कि मैं भारतीय जनता पार्टी का सांसद हूं। मैंने अपनी भावना आपके सामने रखी है। मैं इसलिए बधाई देना चाहता हूं, क्योंकि देश के विकास में यह सबसे महत्वपूर्ण कदम होगा। यह कोई मामूली कदम नहीं है। मैं अटल जी का भा­षण इस समय कोट करना चाहता हूं। वर्ष 1989 में वे इस सदन के सदस्य नहीं थे, राज्य सभा के सदस्य थे। उस समय चन्द्रशेखर जी प्रधानमंत्री थे। किसी ने उन्हें देशद्रोही कह दिया था। मुझे लगता है कि उस समय उन्होंने जो भाषण दिया था, उसे संसद सदस्यों को जरूर पढ़ना चाहिए, मैंने तो उस भा­षण को सुना है। उन्होंने कहा था कि अगर देश की तस्वीर बदलनी है तो क्या-क्या कदम उठाए जाने चाहिए। उन्होंने कहा था कि हमारी मुद्रा बदलनी चाहिए, इससे काला धन समाप्त हो जाएगा। अगर दुनिया हम पर प्रतिबंध लगाती है तो हमारे पास जो केन्टोन बोर्ड की जमीनें हैं, आने वाले तीस साल के सामरिक महत्व को छोड़ कर, हमारी जरूरत के हिसाब से जमीन छोड़कर बाकी जमीन को नीलाम कीजिए और यह सुनिश्चित कीजिए कि हमारे देश के लोग ही उस जमीन को खरीदें। आप पूंजी इकट्ठी कीजिए और देश को बचाने का काम कीजिए।

           तीसरी बात, उन्होंने कही थी कि बजाय विश्व बैंक के सामने हाथ पसारने के, जो हमारे एनआरआई दुनिया के दूसरे देशों में रहते हैं, उनसे निवेदन करो कि देश के लिए मदद करें। वे प्रधानमंत्री बने, तब उन्होंने दो कामों को पूरा किया। यह ऐसा काम है जो मुद्रा बदलने से ज्यादा खतरनाक काम है। राजनीतिक दल जब काम करते हैं तो वे कभी भी इन चीजों को छूना नहीं चाहते हैं। मैं कांग्रेस के मित्रों से कहना चाहता हूं, क्योंकि वे अभी बोल रहे थे कि हम इस बिल को लेकर आए थे। आप बेशक इसे लेकर आए थे लेकिन आप इसका उपयोग नहीं कर सके। यही राजनीतिक इच्छा शक्ति का सबसे बड़ा उदाहरण है।

          महोदय, सवाल यह नहीं है कि कानून क्या कहता है। कानून में और भी संशोधन होंगे। समय बदलेगा, इसमें कुछ खामियां आएंगी, मेरे मन में भी शंका है, उन्हें भी मैं सरकार के ध्यान में लाऊंगा, लेकिन आज का दिन सरकार को बधाई देने का दिन है और उन तमाम लोगों को, जो ईमानदार राजनीति के पक्ष में हैं, मैं दल की बात नहीं करता हूं, अगर वे मानते हैं कि सरकार बदलने से कुछ फर्क पड़ता है, तो उस बदलाव के कुछ पैमाने हो सकते हैं, ऐसे ही कानून हो सकते हैं, अन्यथा बदलाव का कोई कारण नहीं है। एक व्यक्ति की जगह दूसरा व्यक्ति बैठ जाएगा, इससे कोई फर्क पड़ने वाला नहीं है। व्यक्ति करता क्या है? व्यक्ति किन क्षेत्रों में कदम उठाता है, ये ऐसे फैसले हैं जो सरकारों को हिला देने वाले फैसले हैं, क्योंकि जिनके पास सम्पत्तियां हैं, वे मामूली लोग नहीं हैं, वे ताकतवर लोग हैं। बेनामी सम्पत्ति का इसमें जो उल्लेख किया गया है, मैं उसे पढ़ना चाहता हूं - लेन-देन नकली नाम से किया गया हो, तो वह बेनामी है। मालिक को मालूम नहीं हो या सम्पत्ति के संबंध में जानकारी होने से मना करता हो, वह बेनामी सम्पत्ति है। सम्पत्ति का भुगतान करने वाले व्यक्ति का पता न हो। ये तीन बातें हैं, लेकिन इसके अलावा भी बेनामी सम्पत्तियां हैं। मैं सिवनी का सांसद रहा हूं। हमारे ध्यान में आया है कि 3200 एकड़ जमीन, जिसकी कागज पर सात बार रजिस्ट्री हो गई, लेकिन जमीन है ही नहीं, ऐसी कुल 300 एकड़ जमीन है। दिल्ली में बैठे लोगों ने, महारा­­ष्ट्र के लोगों ने कागज के आधार पर लोन ले लिया, लेकिन वह जमीन है ही नहीं। मैं रूरल डवलपमेंट की स्टैंडिंग कमेटी का सदस्य हूं। उसमें कभी दिल्ली में रजिस्ट्री का कम्प्यूटरीकरण करने का काम शुरू हुआ। यह बेहतर रास्ता है, लेकिन एक ही कानून बनाने से बात नहीं बनेगी। इसमें दो-तीन बातें और जोड़नी पड़ेंगी। "आधार नम्बर " को रजिस्ट्री के साथ जोड़ने के बाद मेरे पास अगर दस सम्पत्तियां हैं तो इस नम्बर पर मेरी दस सम्पत्तियां चिह्नित हो जाएंगी और उसके अलावा मेरे पास अगर बेनामी सम्पत्ति है तो उसका कभी न कभी एक्सपोज़र तो होगा। मुझे लगता है कि तीन चीजें एक साथ होनी जरूरी हैं जैसे आधार नम्बर का रजिस्ट्री से जोड़ना बेनामी सम्पत्ति को उजागर करने का एक कारगर उपाय होगा।

          दूसरा उपाय यह है कि हमारे आय कर के जो तौर तरीके हैं, सम्पत्तियों के डिक्लरेशन के जो तौर तरीके हैं, जो हमारे सामने लोकपाल आएगा तो हम चाहे सार्वजनिक रूप से जनप्रतिनिधि हों या अधिकारी हों, हमें समय सीमा में अपनी सम्पत्ति का डिक्लरेशन करना पड़ेगा। आज नहीं तो एक-आध साल के भीतर शायद हम उस स्थिति में पहुंच जाएंगे जो वास्तव में सदन में बैठा हर व्यक्ति चाहता है कि ईमानदार आदमी को कीमत मिलनी चाहिए, बेईमानों को कीमत नहीं मिलनी चाहिए। आज तो उल्टा हो रहा है। अभी भी जिसके पास बेईमानी का धन है, उसके पास ज्यादा ताकत है। मैं दूसरी बात कहना चाहता हूं कि कानून की बातें मैं समझ सकता हूं लेकिन जो वकालत करते हैं, क्या वे सदन में इस बात का उल्लेख करेंगे कि जो गलत ढंग से पैसा कमाया जाता है, वे बेनामी सम्पत्ति खरीदते हैं। मेरे जैसा व्यक्ति जो तीन-चार पीढ़ियों से किसान है, हमारी तो एक डिस्मल जमीन नहीं बढ़ पाई। मुझमें कोई अवगुण नहीं है, लेकिन जो अपराध से पैसा कमाकर गुणात्मक तरीके से बढ़ाकर बेनामी सम्पत्तियां खरीदते हैं, चाहे वे भ्रष्­­टाचार करते हों, चाहे वे किसी भी प्रकार का गलत धंधा करते हों, हमारे एक मित्र ने कहा था, मैं उनकी बात कोट करते हुए उन्हें धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूँ,, उन्होंने कहा कि मैं पच्चीस एकड़ का काश्तकार हूँ, मैं दो टाइम भी अच्छे से रोटी नहीं खा सकता हूं। बच्चों को अच्छे स्कूल में नहीं पढ़ा सकता हूं, लेकिन सट्टा खिलाने वाला हमसे दस गुना नहीं, बल्कि सौ गुना आगे होता है। क्या यह सच्चाई नहीं है? मुझे लगता है कि ये चीजें कभी न कभी तो रुकनी थीं। आप कहोगे कि यह तो सीआरपीसी का मामला है, जी नहीं, यह सीआरपीसी का मामला नहीं है। यह आयकर की चोरी का मामला नहीं है, यह तो देशद्रोह है। उन अपराधों से ज्यादा गंभीर मामला है, इसलिए मैं सरकार को बधाई दूंगा। लेकिन अभी भी इसमें बहुत सारी बातें कही जा सकती हैं। मठों, मंदिरों की सम्पत्तियों का इसमें उल्लेख नहीं है।

          मैं आपके माध्यम से मंत्री जी के संज्ञान में दो बातें लाना चाहता हूं कि जैसे आपने हिंदू सम्मिलित परिवार की बात कही है, ऐसे ही हमारे शताब्दियों से ट्रस्ट चले आ रहे हैं, उनके पास तो कागज भी नहीं हैं। राजाओं ने जमीनें दान कर दीं और वे ऐसे ही चले आ रहे हैं। वह भगवान के नाम पर सम्पत्ति है। मुझे लगता है कि ऐसा होना चाहिए कि हजारों व­र्षों से जो ट्रस्ट काम कर रहे हैं, जिनमें किसी व्यक्ति का नाम नहीं है, क्या उनको सुरक्षा मिल पाएगी? कहीं ऐसा न हो कि जो ट्रस्टी हैं, बाकी लोगों के कारण उन पर कब्जा हो जाए। मुझे लगता है कि इसको भी कहीं न कहीं ध्यान में लाना चाहिए। कर्मचारी और अधिकारियों की संख्या कम है। अभी एनफोर्समेंट डायरेक्टरेट की बात हुई थी, उनके पास संख्या की कमी है। इसमें बहुत बड़ा अमला लगना है। यह कमी इसको लागू करने में तो दिक्कत पैदा नहीं करेगी, इन बातों की चिंता इसमें की जानी चाहिए।

 

          तीसरी बात मैं कहना चाहता हूं कि जो सम्पत्ति जब्त की जाती है, जो प्राधिकारी है, यदि 90 दिन में उसको लगता है कि यह बेनामी सम्पत्ति है तो वह उसे अधिकृत कर सकता है। पीड़ित को अपील करने का अधिकार है, लेकिन 90 दिन के भीतर अगर वह जब्ती बनाता है तो अक्सर जो देखा जाता है कि चाहे हम जितने भी जब्ती के केसेज देखें, चाहे इन्कम टैक्स के केसेज देखें या बैंक्स के केसेज देखें, जो सम्पत्ति जब्त होती है, उसका जब तक फैसला होता है, तब तक उसका एक चौथाई भी नहीं बचता है। क्या यह सुनिश्चित किया जाएगा कि लिस्ट ऑफ मेमोरेंडम पहले बनाया जाएगा, तभी उस सम्पत्ति की लूट से बचा जा सकता है? क्या इसको सुनिश्चित करने के बारे में कोई प्रावधान इसमें होगा? चौथी बात मैं कहना चाहूंगा कि इंटर स्टेट में कोई पकड़ा जाता है, जैसे दिल्ली में कोई पकड़ा जाता है, लेकिन उसकी बेनामी सम्पत्ति कर्नाटक में है तो उस सम्पत्ति का हकदार कौन होगा, स्टेट गवर्नमेंट होगी या केन्द्र सरकार होगी? यह सब नियम बनाते समय आपने विचार किया होगा। इसमें बहुत सारी बारीकियां हैं।

          हमारे मित्र कल्याण बनर्जी जी मुझ से पूर्व बोल रहे थे। वह तो अधिवक्ता हैं, मुझ से ज्यादा समझते होंगे। उन्होंने कहा राजस्व के लोग क्यों होने चाहिए, इनकम टैक्स के लोग क्यों होने चाहिए। जब तक राजस्व का आदमी नहीं होगा, तो इन बारीकियों को पकड़ नहीं सकता है। अगर इनकम टैक्स का अधिकारी इसमें नहीं होगा तो इन ट्रांजैक्शन्स के बारे में बहुत आसानी से समझ नहीं सकता है। इसलिए प्राधिकरण के अध्यक्ष को जो अधिकार दिए गए हैं, वह विवेक के अधिकार हैं, वह सिर्फ नियमों के भीतर बंधे हुए अधिकारी नहीं हैं।

          मैं सरकार को इसके लिए बधाई देते हुए यह कहना चाहूंगा कि इसमें जितने भी वि­षय अपील से लेकर नियुक्तियों तक आए हैं, वह इसके लिए बधाई की पात्र है। लेकिन मैं इससे भी ज्यादा गर्व या प्रशंसा महसूस करता हूं तो वह इस बात के लिए करता हूं कि इस सरकार के मुखिया की और सरकार की जो राजनैतिक इच्छाशक्ति है, जिसकी वजह से इस बात की चिंता किए बगैर कि बहुत से ताकतवर लोग इसका विरोध करेंगे, वह देश को मजबूत करने के लिए इस बिल को लाए हैं।

          मैं सरकार को बधाई देते हुए इस बिल का  समर्थन करता हूं और मैं यह मानता हूं कि बार-बार कोई नया अधिनियम लाने की जरूरत नहीं है, बल्कि वह संशोधन ही ठीक था। आने वाली पीढ़ी के सामने यह इतिहास होगा कि सन् 1882 से हम शुरू हुए थे, लेकिन समाधान के लायक हम वर्ष 2016 में बन पाए और इतिहास कहीं न कहीं इस बात का हिसाब लिखेगा। धन्यवाद।

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, thank you for affording this opportunity to participate in the discussion on this very important Bill. I rise to support this Bill with certain reservations. The main reservation is the Standing Committee on Finance headed by Veerappa Moily Ji had submitted very detailed recommendations for getting the Bill in a better way, but unfortunately, most of the major recommendations of the Standing Committee have not been taken into consideration. They would have improved the Bill in a better way. That is the main reservation which I have and this is my first observation.

          Sir, as everybody knows, black money is a menace to the Indian economy and one of the main sources for generation of black money is the benami transaction or benami deal. So, benami deals are one of the major reasons for the proliferation of black money in a big way. So, generation of black money should be restricted. If we want to restrict and prohibit the generation of black money, definitely, the benami transactions should be dealt with seriously and in a very strict manner.

          Sir, our country is facing acute poverty, unemployment and inequity. On one side, there is poverty, inequity and unemployment; and on the other, unaccounted wealth is accumulating like anything because of these benami transactions. If we are able to contain and restrict the benami transaction, definitely, the revenue tax which will be going to the exchequer can be very well utilized for development, for poverty eradication and for other purposes, and thus the country can be served in a better way. So, my first submission to this august House is, at any cost, we have to restrict the generation of black money by way of prohibiting these benami transactions or benami deals. 

          Coming to the background of this Bill, what is the real background of this Bill? The United Nations Convention Against Corruption was a very important Convention, in order to deal with the issue of corruption. It was also the recommendation of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. These were the two factors because of which this Bill has been brought before this House. According to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, India has ratified the Convention in the year 2011.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption is primarily to promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption more effectively and efficiently. These are the two terms that are used in the Convention document that the issue has to be dealt with and it should be implemented effectively and efficiently. This is the letter and sprit of the Convention document. Article 23 and Article 30 of the said Convention are specific on the benami transactions and also proceeds of crime derived from offences. The detailed examination of this benami transaction, transfer of property and all these issues are well addressed in the UN Convention document. Article 23 and Article 31 are specific on these issues.

          This Amendment Bill of 2015, to some extent, helps in achieving the directions of the UN Convention against Corruption and also the fourth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission which was submitted in 2007 also deals with the benami transaction. That also has been taken into consideration in drafting that Bill. Therefore, I would congratulate the Government at least at this time on bringing such a Bill before this House.

          Coming to the Bill, I would say that the original Bill is the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act of 1988. This Bill was to prohibit the benami transaction and recover the property held by the benamidar. This was the intention of the Bill. It may kindly be seen that prior to the enactment of this Bill by this House in the year 1988, an Ordinance was promulgated on 19th May, 1988. What is meant by the promulgation of an Ordinance? Promulgation of an Ordinance means that it is highly essential and there is no time till the House is being summoned. So, an Ordinance had been promulgated called the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Ordinance, on 19th May, 1988. Subsequent to that Ordinance, it was replaced by the Act of 1988. This is the background. This is the situation. So, it was done in a very urgent way in 1988 and the Bill was enacted.

What happened after passing of the Act in the year 1988? Nothing has happened during these 28 years of our experience. It is quite unfortunate to note this because the Parliament passed an enactment in the year 1988. After 28 years of experience, we could not frame any rules. Nothing has happened on the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act. This is the situation. Subsequently, in the year 2011, the then UPA Government started bringing a new comprehensive Bill. That Bill also lapsed because of the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. My point is, what is the bona fidebehind this Bill? Why is this Bill delayed? No rule is framed; no action is taken on the basis of the provisions of this Act. This Act is actually put in the cold storage. It shows that the Governments were not sincere in the operationalization of the benami law. Therefore, I congratulate the hon. Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitleyji, because at least, this time this Bill has come before the House for consideration. It is better late than never. At least, we are getting a chance to deliberate on this issue and we are going to pass this Bill also.

          Coming to the provisions of this Bill, the Act of 1988 has the provision to prohibit benami transaction and right to recover benami property. But there was no specific provision for vesting the property with the Central Government. There was no appellate mechanism and no powers have been conferred upon the authorities as that of civil courts. There is no rule making provision. These were the four deficiencies noted by the Government during the 28 years of our experience. My simple question to the Government is this because the Government is in continuity. Why are we not able to frame rules? Why are we not able to overcome the deficiencies all these 28 years? The Government has to answer. I apprehend about it because the Government is not interested in executing or implementing the provisions of the benami law. There is no political will power. That is the main reason that I would like to point out. 

          Almost all the deficiencies have been addressed in the recent Bill.  Still, there are some lacunas.  Here, the definition of benami transaction is given as the property which is transferred to, or held by a person, and the consideration for such property has been given by some other person for his immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect.  Why should we make it immediate or future?  It should be mentioned whether it is immediate or future.  I have moved such an amendment also.

          Secondly, a person denies the knowledge of ownership.  Thirdly, the real beneficiary is not traceable or is a fictitious person, and fourthly, what will happen if the property has been transferred in a fictitious name?  This definition of benami transaction has to be reviewed once again so that further exemption shall never be made.  Exemption has been given for the property held in the name of children or spouse etc. and some other exceptions are given.  There is still some discussion going on to have more exemptions because the hon. Minister of Finance also said in his opening remarks that some complaints have been coming from various corners regarding the power of attorney holders and all these things.  Please don’t enhance the exemptions or expand the scope of exemptions which are available to the benami law.

          Coming to mechanism and due procedure, a good mechanism is put in place, that is Initiating Officer, Approving Authority, Administrator, Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Tribunal, appeal to the High Court and Special Court to try the offences are also there.  A very good mechanism is put in place and a well-established procedure is also there. 

But there are some clarifications which I would like to seek.  The first clarification is regarding the application of Code of Civil Procedure.  Regarding the application of Code of Civil Procedure, Section 11 and Section 19 are totally contradictory.  Section 11 says that Adjudicating Authority shall not be bound by the procedure laid by the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice subject to the other provisions of the Act.  The Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure.    Now kindly go through Section 19.  Section 19 is totally reverse to this Section.  It says that the Authority shall, for the purpose of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely, discovery and inspection, enforcing the attendance of a person, compelling the production of books etc.  Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, Administrator etc. are having all these powers.  So, the Adjudicating Authority and authorities under the Act are not bound by the CPC as far as the procedure is concerned.  But as far as the powers are concerned, they are entitled to all the powers but are not bound by the procedure which is being laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. 

          Similarly, in Section 40 clause 1 and clause 2, that is regarding the Appellate Tribunal, the same situation is there.  There is total contradiction in clause 1 and clause 2.  As per Section 40 clause 1, the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.  Section 40 clause 2 says that the Appellate Tribunal shall, for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, have the same powers as were vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely summoning and enforcing the attendance of a person and examining him.  All powers which are vested with the civil court are also applicable for the Appellate Tribunal.  Therefore, they are not bound by the procedure which is being laid. 

Further, coming to clause 4 of Section 40, there is a specific provision that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section 3, the Appellate Tribunal may transmit any order made by it to a civil court having jurisdiction and the civil court shall execute the order as if it were a decree made by the court.

          The powers are of the civil court and the execution is by a civil court; the CPC is applicable as far as the powers is concerned for the adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal but the procedure of CPC is not applicable. This means, there has to be a clarification by the hon. Minister.

          The second clarification is regarding the appeal before the High Court. Against the order of the appellate tribunal, either the Central Government or any party to thebenami transaction can approach the High Court and seek remedy as the appellate mechanism. That is under clause 49(3), (4), and (5).  It is very interesting. This is a very important point on which I would like to seek a clarification from the Government. It says that if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in that case it shall formulate that question. I think, for the first time in the history of Indian legislation we are restricting the powers of the High Court. Subsequently, the appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated by the High Court.  That question only will be argued and decided and the respondent of the hearing of the appeal shall be allowed to argue only on that question. What is this procedure? The High Court is having inherent powers and discretionary powers. How can we restrict the High Court that it should adjudicate only on the question of law?

In the civil or mofussil courts or lower courts after the written statement and everything the issues will be framed by the lower courts. Similarly, we are giving a direction to the High Court to see what the question of law is. It is an admitted fact that the High Court will entertain an appeal only if there is a question of law. It is an accepted fact. Why are we restricting the right and discretionary powers of the High Court that it should only see the question of law and that should be famed as an issue and only on that question there can be arguments? This is absolutely unnecessary. I think, this is not according to the established provisions of our Constitution on judicial powers.

          Another clarification which I would like to seek is regarding section 58. You kindly see clause 58. An exemption is given here again to the definition of benami transaction.  What is a benami transaction? What are the exemptions to the benami transactions? These are well explained in section 18. Another provision is there in clause 58 (1) which says, “The Central Government may by notification exempt any property relating to charitable or religious trusts from the operation of this Act.” What does this mean? This means, the Central Government is taking the discretionary authority to see that by means of a notification it can very well say that though a property is a benami property, this Act is not operational as far as the religious trusts and charitable trusts are concerned. What is a benami transaction? Almost all the benami transactions are in the name of religious and charitable trusts.

          Today in the morning also we have passed a legislation. I am not going into the merits of that legislation. It was regarding the Lokpal Bill. There also the point is a little bit controversial. This provision here means that in the name of charitable or religious trusts, this Act itself is not operational. That is the provision in clause 58. They are totally excluded from the purview of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act of 2015. This has to be clarified.

          The fourth point on which I would like to seek clarification is section 59.  The power of the Central Government to issue instructions, directions and orders to the Authority is very interesting.  Kindly see section 59 (1).  I am seeing this for the first time.  We have passed a number of legislation.  This is a new phraseology or a new provision which has come.  “The Central Government may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions or directions to the Authorities or require any person to furnish information as it may deem fit.”  What are the areas where the directions are given?  Section 59 (d) says: “Any other criterion that may be specified by the Central Government in this behalf.”  Sir, an adjudicating authority is a quasi judicial authority. As per section 59 (1) the Central Government has the power to give instructions, directions in order to adjudicate a matter.  Is a judicious mind applied in this provision?

Finally, section 59 (3) says: “No orders, instructions or directions under sub-section (1) shall be issued to (a) require any authority to decide a particular case in a particular manner, or (b) interfere with the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority in the discharge of its functions.”   This is a very strange provision.  In the first provision it is being said that the Central Government is having ample power to issue direction, instruction to the Adjudicating Authority.  Why should the Central Government have such a power?  The Adjudicating Authority should be independent.  Why should the Central Government issue direction and instruction?  It is being said that they have to observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions of the Central Government.  The Adjudicating Authority is bound to obey the orders, instructions and directions of the Central Government, which mean the judicial capacity of this Authority is being lost. I am only seeking clarifications on section 59.

  These are the clarifications which I am seeking from the Government.  Operationalisation of this Act definitely depends on the political will of the Government to curb benami transactions and black money.  We have lapsed 27 years and during these 27 years we were sleeping over the Act of 1988.  I hope that even after 27 years the Bill will be implemented as the document of UN Convention against corruption specifies.  This Bill will be implemented more efficiently and I hope that this will be done. 

With these words, I once again support this Bill with these reservations and clarifications.  Thank you very much.

                                                                  

DR. UDIT RAJ (NORTH WEST DELHI): Thank you Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity.  I will start by saying that Shri Kalyan Banerjee said as to why the income tax authority at all be involved in the implementation of the Act.  I would like to tell him that to train an officer or to create a department it takes years and years.  It is not very easy to create an organization exclusively other than the income tax to cater to this new law which is going to be implemented.

          Shri N.K. Premachandran said that except only where the issue of law is involved, the case cannot be heard in the High Court.  I think he is very correct.  On the basis of the facts if one goes to the High Court, it goes on un-ending. If there would not be any stoppage, then the purpose of the Act will be defeated.

          मैंने एक इन्कम टैक्स ऑफीसर के रूप में देखा है। थोड़ा-बहुत बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शंस को हम लोग भी पकड़ते थे। A comprehensive Bill is going to come. उसमें होता यह है कि मान लीजिए कि अगर कोई बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शन करना चाहता है तो वह इतने कंडय़ूइट पैदा करता है कि एक बैंक से पैसा दूसरे बैंक में, दूसरे बैंक से तीसरे में, तीसरे से चौथे में और चौथे से पांचवें बैंक में भेजता रहता है। इस तरह से, अगर इन्कम टैक्स ऑफीसर या इनिशिएटिंग ऑफीसर या एडज्युडिकेटिंग ऑथोरिटी उसे पकड़ना भी चाहे तो उसके पास इसके लिए कोई मैकेनिज्म नहीं है। इन्कम टैक्स विभाग में अंडर स्टाफिंग बहुत है। इसकी वज़ह से इस बात के ऊपर हमें बड़ा एप्रीहेन्सन है कि यह एक्ट वास्तव में सक्सीड कर सकता है। माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी भी यहां हैं। मैं उनसे अपील करूंगा कि रिक्रूटमेंट बढ़ानी चाहिए। बिना स्टाफ के इसे इम्प्लीमेंट नहीं किया जा सकता है। मैंने इन्कम टैक्स विभाग में वर्कलोड देखा है। They are already burdened. उनके पास इतना ज्यादा काम है कि अगर इस एक्ट को उन्हें इम्प्लीमेंट या मैनेज करने के लिए दे दिया जाएगा तो ऑफीसर्स की और स्टाफ की बहुत कमी होगी, इसलिए रिक्रूटमेंट भी होनी चाहिए।

          अगर डिजीटाइजेशन होता है तो बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शन को रोकना बहुत आसान हो जाएगा, इसलिए उस पर भी ध्यान दिया जाना चाहिए। माननीय प्रधान मंत्री और माननीय वित्त मंत्री का डिजीटाइजेशन पर जोर है, तो मुझे इस बात के ऊपर बहुत ज्यादा कॉन्फीडेंस है कि गवर्नमेंट के एक्सचेकर में इससे रेवेन्यू की बढ़ोतरी होगी, जिससे देश का विकास होगा। विभिन्न ज़गहों पर जो एकाउंट खोले जाते हैं या जो ट्रांजैक्शंस होते हैं तो उनके नाम को ट्रैक करना मुश्किल हो जाता है। अब डिजीटाइजेशन की वज़ह से इसे ट्रैक करना आसान हो जाएगा। इस बात के लिए मैं धन्यवाद देता हूं। खास तौर से, मैं अपने विद्वान दोस्त एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन जी को धन्यवाद देता हूं। उन्हें इस चीज़ का डर नहीं होना चाहिए कि ये जो सिविल पावर्स एडज्युडिकेटिंग ऑथोरिटी को दी जा रही हैं, ऐसा अभी नहीं हुआ है, यह ऑलरेडी प्रैक्टिस में है। इससे संबंधित तीन करोड़ दस लाख केसेज ऑलरेडी हाई कोर्ट में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट में पड़े हुए हैं। अगर हम वहां और ज्यादा केसेज भेज कर लिटीगेशन को बढ़ाएंगे तो बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शंस के पीछे जो हमारा पर्पज़ है, वह डिफीट होगा।

          महोदय, मैं माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी का ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहता हूं कि जब वी.डी.आई.एस. स्कीम आई थी तो मैं उस समय असिस्टैंट कमिश्नर, इन्कम टैक्स के पद पर था। लोगों ने उस समय अन-डिस्क्लोज्ड इन्कम तो डिक्लेयर कर दी, पर बाद में उनके खिलाफ केसेज खुलने लगे। जो इम्युनिटी दी गयी थी, वह इम्युनिटी इधर-उधर कहीं न कहीं से वॉयलेट हुई। मेरी तमाम चार्टर्ड एकाउंटेंट्स से भी बात हुई है। जब से यह बिल आया है, तब से एक माहौल पैदा हो रहा है। मेरा ख्याल है कि 30 सितम्बर तक, जो लास्ट डेट है, जिसमें बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शंस रियल ऑनर के नाम आएगा और 45औ के हिसाब से लोग उसमें टैक्स पे करने वाले हैं, तो उससे बहुत ज्यादा रेवेन्यू की बढ़ोतरी होगी। लेकिन, जो अभी इम्युनिटी दी जा रही है, वह वॉयलेट नहीं होनी चाहिए, क्योंकि लोगों में इस बात का एप्रीहैन्सन है कि अगर हमने अपना बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शन डिस्कलोज़ कर दिया तो इस स्टेज पर तो नहीं, लेकिन किसी और स्टेज पर इन्कम टैक्स ऑफीसर उसके लिए नोटिस न इश्यू करने लगें, केस को न खोल दें, इस बात पर ध्यान देने के लिए मैं वित्त मंत्री जी का ध्यान आकर्­िषत करता हूं।

          महोदय, मुझे इस पर बोलने का मौका दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देता हूं। इसके बहुत सारे प्रोवीज़ोज हैं। मैं इसके प्रोवीज़ो की नहीं, बल्कि इसके व्यावहारिक पक्ष की बात कर रहा हूं। मैं एक बात और कहना चाहता हूं कि हम लोग आम जनता कहीं बैठ कर किसी भी ऑथोरिटी को, चाहे वह इन्कम टैक्स ऑथोरिटी हो, उसे बड़ी आसानी से ब्लेम कर देते हैं। यह ठीक बात नहीं है। यह परम्परा ठीक नहीं है। अधिकारी लोग किस कंडीशन में काम करते हैं, तो हमें उनको एनकरेज भी करना चाहिए। यह भी कहा जाता है कि हमारे यहां जो इन्कम टैक्स अथारिटीज हैं या रेवेन्यू की अथारिटीज हैं, वे एक तरह से लाइबिलिटीज हैं। किसी ने अभी कहा कि अगर इन्होंने ठीक से काम किया होता तो बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शंस होते ही नहीं। ब्लैक मनी जब पैदा नहीं होगी तो बेनामी ट्रांजैक्शन नहीं होगा।

          यह भी एक बात उभरकर आई है कि आठ पर्सेंट रेवेन्यू ही अधिकारियों के द्वारा या डिपार्टमेंट के द्वारा यहां जेनरेट होता है। मैं यह भी बता देना चाहता हूं कि यह समाज वह समाज है जो चार पीढ़ियों के लिए कमाता है, अपने लिए, अपने बच्चों के लिए, नाती-पोतों के लिए और दूसरे जीवन के लिए, एक तरह से यह सेल्फिश समाज है, स्वार्थी समाज है। अगर इन्कम टैक्स अथारिटी न रहे तो डिटरेन्ट मेजर नहीं रहेगा। अभी केवल आठ पर्सेन्ट इन्कम टैक्स अथारिटी से जेनरेट हो रहा है, 90-92 पर्सेंट अपने आप हो रहा है, तो वह 90 पर्सेंट भी नहीं होगा। एक भय है, एक डिटरेन्ट मेजर है, जिससे रेवेन्यू आता है, वरना वह भी नहीं होगा। इस बात का ध्यान दिया जाना चाहिए। इससे अथारिटी डीमोरलाइज होती हैं। वे सोचती हैं कि कितना भी काम कर लिया जाए, हम लोगों को तो ब्लेम करना ही है, पॉलिटिशियन भी ब्लेम करते हैं और दूसरे भी ब्लेम करते हैं। जैसे हम लोग समाज से आए हैं,  वे भी समाज से आए हैं। इस बात का भी ध्यान रखना चाहिए और फैसिलिटीज भी बढ़ाई जानी चाहिए, जो फैसिलिटीज इस समय हैं, चाहे वे इफ्रास्ट्रक्चर की हैं, वे पर्याप्त नहीं हैं, ताकि यह एक्ट इंप्लीमेंट हो और हमारे देश का रेवेन्यू बढ़े।

          हम रेवेन्यू की बात नहीं करते हैं, खर्च की ही बात करते हैं। रेवेन्यू की बात करने में कुछ लोग डरते हैं। यह जो एक्ट है, वह रेवेन्यू को इनक्रीज़ करेगा और इससे हमारे देश का विकास होगा। धन्यवाद।

                                                                                                         

श्री जय प्रकाश नारायण यादव (बाँका) : उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, जो बेनामी संव्यवहार संशोधन विधेयक, 2015 पेश हुआ है, इस पर बोलने के लिए मैं खड़ा हुआ हूं। 

          माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी बिल को सदन में लाए हैं। यह एक छोटा प्रयास जरूर है कि बेनामी सम्पत्ति पर कैसे रोक लगाई जाए, लेकिन मूल रूप से एक सम्पूर्ण विधेयक भी आना चाहिए। जो ब्लैक मनी है, चाहे वह अन्दर हो या यहां से बाहर चली गई हो, उस पर सम्पूर्ण रूप से कैसे रोक लगे और कैसे काला धन बाहर से हमारे देश में आए? देश में जो काला धन है, कैसे उस पर रोक लगे? काला धन देश के सामने आए और जनता के बीच में जाए। इस पर एक सोच बनानी चाहिए। शिकंजा कसने के लिए कड़े प्रावधान का भी उपाय किया गया है। इसके लिए सजा का भी इंतजाम किया गया है। यह जरूरी है।

          बेनामी सम्पत्ति और बेनामी धन भीतर-भीतर कैंसर की तरह प्रवेश करता है और देश को खाता है, देश की समृद्धि को खाता है। रियल एस्टेट में बड़े कारोबारी चालाकी से पैसे लगा देते हैं। व्यक्ति कोई दूसरा रहता है और संसाधन किसी दूसरे का रहता है। रियल एस्टेट में कानों-कान बात आती रहती है कि रियल एस्टेट में ऐसे पैसे लगा दिए जाते हैं। ये कारोबारी लेन-देन में बड़ी चालाकी और होशियारी करते हैं। मॉल में, सम्पत्ति का मालिक कहीं है और धन किसी का लगा हुआ है। बड़े-बड़े सिनेमा हॉल में, जो फिल्मी दुनिया की इंडस्ट्री है, उसमें भी बड़े पैमाने पर कारोबारी दौलत को लगाने का काम करते हैं। किसान और मजदूर तो एक कमरे के लिए लड़ाई करते हैं और आपस में मुकदमेबाजी में फंस जाते हैं। वे तो एक घर और एक कट्ठा जमीन में फंस जाते हैं।

           आज जमींदारी खत्म हो गई। उसके बाद भी बेनामी जमीन बड़े-बड़े लोगों के पास है।   

17.00hours           आज भी उन्होंने कई तरीके से सम्पत्ति बनाई हुई है। बड़े घराने के लोगों के पास हजारों तरीके हैं। उनके पास बेनामी धन-दौलत भरी पड़ी है। अभी किसी का नाम लेना उचित नहीं है क्योंकि बिल सामने है। जब काले धन पर बहस होगी, जिसकी बराबर चर्चा होती रही है कि ब्लैक मनी आएगी, हमारा देश समृद्ध होगा और रोजगार के अवसर आएंगे, जब वह आएगा, उस पर बड़े पैमाने पर चर्चा होगी। बड़े उद्योगपति लेन-देन के साथ कारोबार करते हैं और देश की समृद्धि, सुख-शान्ति और गरीब लोगों का धन लूटते हैं। सम्पत्ति की सीमा निर्धारित होनी चाहिए कि कितनी सम्पत्ति होनी चाहिए। किसी के पास अपार सम्पत्ति है। कोई खाते-खाते मरते हैं और कोई खाने के बिना मरते हैं। इसलिए सम्पत्ति की सीमा भी तय होनी चाहिए।

          आज भी बड़े पैमाने पर जमीन की खरीदारी हो रही है। कहीं जंगल का क्षेत्र, कहीं पहाड़ का क्षेत्र, कहीं पठारी इलाका, वे वहां पांच हजार एकड़, दस हजार एकड़ जमीन खरीद लेते हैं। बीस साल बाद उसका दाम पचास गुना बढ़ जाता है। वहां उद्योग जाने लगते हैं, एनएच जाने लगता है, रेल लाइनें जाने लगती हैं। इस तरह बहुत चालाकी की जाती है। सरकार को सावधान होना पड़ेगा, माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी को भी सावधानी बरतनी पड़ेगी कि लोग दिन के उजाले में बड़ी-बड़ी घटनाओं को अंजाम देते हैं। इस पर ध्यान देना पड़ेगा कि देश में कितना काला धन आया, कितना फायदा हुआ, कितना रोजगार आया। यह अलग बात है। मैं कहूंगा कि लैंड माफिया, सैंड माफिया, फॉरैस्ट माफिया, आज भी कई मठों में बड़े पैमाने पर हजारों एकड़ जमीन किसी-किसी नाम से है।

          माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी से अपेक्षा है कि वे इस पर ध्यान देंगे। जो बेनामी बिल लाया गया है, इसके माध्यम से काली कमाई से बेनामी सम्पत्ति खरीदने पर ब्रेक लगेगी। यह जरूर एक छोटा प्रयास है। मैं माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी की सराहना करता हूं और अपनी बात समाप्त करता हूं।                                                                                             

श्री विनायक भाऊराव राऊत (रत्नागिरी-सिंधुदुर्ग) :  महोदय, मैं बेनामी संव्यवहार संशोधन विधेयक, 2015 का अनुमोदन करने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं। मैं अपने पंथ प्रधान प्रधान मंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी और वित्त मंत्री अरुण जेटली जी को बधाई दूंगा, अभिनन्दन करूंगा। उन्होंने 28 वष्­ाऩ बाद इस वि­षय के बारे में एक महत्वपूर्ण विधेयक लोक सभा में पेश किया है। उन्होंने एक बहुत बड़ा कदम उठाया है। आज तक कई बातें हो चुकीं, भ्र­ष्टाचार रोकने के लिए कई घोषणएं की गईं, कई कानून बनाने की घोषणा हुई। इसके बावजूद असल में कानून बनाने का काम इस विधेयक के माध्यम से हो रहा है। मैं एक बार फिर वित्त मंत्री जी का अभिनन्दन करना चाहता हूं।

          आज देश में जो सबसे ज्यादा शब्द प्रयोग किया जाता है, उसका नाम भ्रष्टाचार है। भ्र­ष्टाचार हमारे साथ इतने जबरदस्त तरीके से जुड़ा हुआ है कि लोग सही व्यवहार को एक तरफ रखते हैं और आड़े मार्ग से जाकर व्यवहार करना पसंद करते हैं। लोग आड़ा रास्ता क्यों पसंद करते हैं। परिणाम है कि इस देश में अलग-अलग तरह का टैक्सेशन सिस्टम, सही तरीके से, मेहनत से पैसे कमाना और घर-संसार चलाना मुश्किल बात हो चुकी है।

          सारे लोगों को स्विस बैंक के बारे में अच्छी तरह से मालूम है। भारत में काला धन कमाने वाले स्विस बैंक में अपना धन रखते हैं। सौभाग्य से पिछले चुनाव में प्रधानमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी ने हिन्दुतानियों के सामने असलियत में इसकी व्याख्या की, कालेधन का आंकड़ा लोगों के सामने रखने के बाद पूरी तरीके से मालूम हुआ कि अगर सही तरह से इस कानून का इस्तेमाल करके कालेधन इस पाबंदी लगाने की सरकार कोशिश करे तो एक दिन हिन्दुस्तान की प्रगति अच्छी तरह से हो सकेगी और हिन्दुस्तान अच्छे रास्ते पर चल सकता है। दुर्भाग्य से वह अभी तक नहीं हो रहा है। आज कालाधन कमाने के अलग-अलग रास्ते हैं लेकिन पिछले कई व­र्षों में यह साबित हो चुका है। आज का वर्तमान पत्र हो या मीडिया में हो, राजघराने में काम करने वाले पॉलिटिशियन हैं उनके ऊपर ज्यादा से ज्यादा काला धन कमाने का आरोप होता है लेकिन यह दुर्भाग्य से साबित हो चुका है, चाहे महारा­ष्ट्र हो या अन्य राज्य हो, जिनके ऊपर घूस लेने के वक्त ट्रैप किया गया है, जिन्हें घूसखोरी में अरेस्ट किया गया है, उनमें से ज्यादा से ज्यादा संख्या महसूल विभाग में काम करने वाले सरकारी कर्मचारियों की है, उसके बाद पुलिस कर्मचारियों की है।

          उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, इस देश में सबसे ज्यादा काला धन का निर्माण रिअल स्टेट के माध्यम से हो रहा है, जमीन के माध्यम से हो रहा है, जिस जमीन का रेट बाजार भाव में होता है उससे कई गुणा ज्यादा पैसा देकर कई लोग जमीन खरीदते हैं और लोगों को और सरकार को फंसाने का काम  करते हैं। उसके माध्यम से जो पैसा जमा जाता है उसे सरकार के पास नहीं दिखाया जाता है। अगर सही कीमत सरकार को दिखाने की कोशिश करें तो लोगों को डर लगता है, लोगों का डर होता है, टैक्सेशन में बढ़ोत्तरी होती जा रही है, पन्द्रह टका, बीस  टका, पचास टका टैक्स कोई भी ईमानदारी से व्यवहार करता है तो कम से कम उसको प्रोफिट का 55औ टैक्स देना पड़ता है। लोग कहते हैं अगर ईमानदारी से पैसा कमाने की कोशिश करे तो उसमें से अगर 55औ टैक्स गवर्नमेंट को देना पड़े तो व्यवहार को सामने क्यों रखें, इसलिए टैक्सेशन सिस्टम में बदलाव करने की जरूरत है। ईमानदारी से जो लोग काम करने वाले हैं उनको प्रोटेक्शन देना का काम होना चाहिए।

          इस विधेयक में एक अच्छा सुझाव है कि हिन्दू फैमिली की डिफिनेशन को बहुत अच्छा किया है इससे लोगों को राह मिलेगी। इनकम टैक्स वाले जिस तरह से लोगों को डराने का काम करते हैं उसके ऊपर भी पाबंदी लगाने की जरूरत है। इस विधेयक में आपने सिर्फ इन्कम टैक्स को इन्वोल्व किया है, कालेधन के व्यवहार करने के कई तरीके हैं इसमें फिल्म इंडस्ट्री है, रेल इंडस्ट्री है, हवाला रैकेट है। इलेक्शन के वक्त तो हवाला से ज्यादा से ज्यादा पैसा आता है, उसके ऊपर पाबंदी नहीं है। कई कानून अच्छे होते हैं लेकिन उनका इम्पलिमेन्टेशन सही तरीके से नहीं हो रहा है इसलिए उसका सही फायदा  देश को नहीं हो रहा है। 

           उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, इस देश को उसका सही फायदा नहीं हो रहा है और इस देश के लोगों को भी उसका फायदा नहीं हो रहा है। मैं इस विधेयक को अनुमोदन देते हुए, फिर एक बार माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी और माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी का अभिनंदन करता हूं और कहता हूं कि इस विधेयक के माध्यम से काले धन के ऊपर प्रतिबन्ध तो होना चाहिए, लेकिन ईमानदारी से काम करने वाले लोगों को भी संरक्षण मिलना चाहिए। यह विनती मैं आपसे करता हूं। धन्यवाद।

KUMARI SUSHMITA DEV (SILCHAR): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been listening very carefully to all the Members of this august House who have taken time to make certain submissions by way of a debate on an important Bill, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015.

          Each and every Member in this House has supported this Bill. In supporting this Bill, the reason they have given for it is that we are all unanimous that black money is one of the greatest menaces in this country. We all have to fight it together. The hon. Finance Minister when he addressed the House before the debate started that this Bill had been brought earlier by the UPA Government. But because it lapsed, it has to be reintroduced both in Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha.

          Today the question arises as to why are we supporting this Bill. The earlier 1988 Act had a blanket prohibition that a `benami transaction’ defined hereunder, cannot be allowed, and it  is banned. But there was no detailed legislation. We did not know who is going to investigate? Who is going to go after a benami transaction? Most of the cases that have developed in the past, whether by way of the Supreme Court or various High Court orders are always between two individuals; two individuals accusing each other. So, I appreciate the move of the Government. Now, we have proper authorities, proper investigating officers in initiating officers, the approving authority, an administrator and the adjudicating authority.

          Few issues that I feel have created some confusion in my mind is that in Section 53(1) which says that any person who is in violation of provisions of this law, shall be prosecuted with rigorous punishment, etc. When you say any persons, the question that arises is - who do we put the mens rea on? Are we talking about the person who has transferred the property but indirectly kept it for his benefit? Or are we talking about the person in whose name this property has been parked? That is not clear. I hope the hon. Finance Minister would elaborate on that.

          Secondly, and more significantly, where this Government  is consistently talked about cooperative federalism, I do not somehow understand why once the property is confiscated, why should it vest in the Central Government and not in the respective State Governments where those properties are today situated? Apart from that, we welcome this Bill. I hope it goes in creating an atmosphere, a legislative atmosphere in the country where not just creation of black money but transacting in black money, parking of  black money is seen as a liability and not a windfall profit. Thank you, Sir.

 

17.14 hours                                       (Hon. Speakerin the Chair)   श्री प्रेम सिंह चन्दूमाजरा (आनंदपुर साहिब) : माननीय अध्यक्ष महोदया, देशभर में बेनामी ट्रांजेक्शन्स को रोकने के लिए 1988 में बेनामी प्रोहिबिशन ट्रींजेक्शन एक्ट बनाया गया। मगर यह सच है कि जो सरकार का उद्देश्य था, वह पूरा नहीं हो पाया, क्योंकि उसमें बहुत सारी खामियां रह गई थीं। यहां तक कमियां रह गईं उसमें कोई रूल्स और रेगुलेशन्स भी फ्रेम नहीं कर पाए, सजा देने की जो व्यवस्था थी वह भी ठीक प्रकार से नहीं हो पाई। किसी एक्ट के माध्यम से जो काम करने का उद्देश्य होता है, वह इस एक्ट के पारित होने के बाद पूरा नहीं हो पाया। इसलिए यूपीए-दो सरकार के समय में वर्ष 2011 में एक बिल लाया गया और जो पुराने बिल में खामियां थीं, उन्हें दूर करने के लिए अमेंडमेंट कर के वह बिल लाया गया। लेकिन पोलिटिकल विल न होने के कारण उस समय की सरकार से पास नहीं हो पाया। मैं सरकार को बधाई देना चाहता हूं, विशे­ष  रूप से माननीय अरुण जेटली जी को बधाई देना चाहता हूं कि वह आज बेनामी ट्रांजेक्शन (प्रोहिबिशन) अमेंडमेंट बिल,2015  लेकर आए हैं।

          मैं समझता हूं कि देश के लोगों की जो अपेक्षाएं सरकार से थी और लोग सोच रहे हैं कि सब कुछ होते हुए देश गरीब क्यों है। इकोनामिक सर्वे के अनुसार, बड़े इकोनामिस्ट्स ने राय दी है कि देश का 70 परसेंट धन केवल 10-15 परसेंट लोगों के हाथों में चला गया है जिससे 70 वर्षों में अमीर अमीर होता गया और गरीब गरीब होता गया। इसका बहुत बड़ा कारण यह था कि देश का इकट्ठा हुआ काला धन कुछ विदेशों में भेजा गया और यहां कुछ बेनामी प्रापर्टियां खरीदी गई। मैं समझता हूं कि इस बिल के पास होने के बाद एक्ट बनने से देश का यह रुझान खत्म होगा, देश में अमीर और गरीब की खाई खत्म होगी। देश का इकोनामिक मॉडल गरीब लोगों के लिए अच्छा साबित होगा। इसके बहुत फायदे हो सकते हैं।

      मैं माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी से कुछ क्लेरिफिकेशन्स जरूर चाहता हूं। इनकम टैक्स एक्ट में भी इसके साथ कुछ बदलाव करने की जरूरत है। एचयूएफ की परिभाषा तो दी है, प्रैक्टिकल में माननीय वित्त मंत्री जी को ध्यान देना होगा, समाज में कुछ ऐसे लोग हैं जब वे बुजुर्ग हो जाते हैं तो अपनी बहन के नाम पर जज़बाती तौर पर पैसे देना चाहता है, कोई अपनी कज़न को पैसे देना चाहता है। मान लीजिए उस व्यक्ति के अपने बच्चे नहीं हैं, उसका कोई कज़न या चचेरा भाई उसकी देखभाल करता है, जब उसे पैसा दिया जाएगा तो उसका क्या होगा? इस बात की क्लेरिफिकेशन होनी चाहिए।

          यह सच है कि हमारे देश में कुछ जमीनें भगवान के नाम पर हैं, कुछ जमीनें गुरुद्वारा साहब की जमीनें गुरु ग्रंथ साहब के नाम पर हैं। यह ठीक है कि माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आदेश दिया है, फैसला किया है कि श्री गुरु ग्रंथ साहब को व्यक्ति के रूप में, गुरु के रूप में माना जाए। इस बिल में जरूर क्लेरिफिकेशन होनी चाहिए ताकि कोई कन्फयूजन न रह जाए। इससे पहले लैंड रिफार्म्स हुए, किसी ने बिल्ली, कुत्ते आदि के नाम पर जमीनें की हुई थी। आमदनी की सीलिंग, लैंड सीलिंग, लैंड रिफार्म्स को प्रैक्टिकली कैसे लागू किया जाए, मैं चाहता हूं कि इस बिल में काप्रिहेन्सिव तौर पर इसकी क्लेरिफिकेशन दी जाए। धन्यवाद।

श्री कौशलेन्द्र कुमार (नालंदा) : माननीय अध्यक्ष जी, आपने मुझे बेनामी लेनदेन (प्रतिष्­ाॊध) संशोधन विधेयक, 2015 पर बोलने का मौका दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपका बहुत धन्यवाद करता हूं। बेनामी नामों से संपत्ति खरीदने, व्यापार करने, शेयर का लेनदेन करना, गाड़ी खरीदना हमारे देश में आम बात हो गई है। पैसा किसी व्यक्ति का होता है, लेकिन संपत्ति का स्वामित्व किसी अज्ञात व्यक्ति के नाम से होता है। कुछ मामलों में अपने पैसे खुद के नाम पर ली गई संपत्ति को तुरंत अपने परिवार के किसी सदस्य के नाम से ट्रांसफर कर दिया जाता है। यह सिर्फ कानून की आंखों में धूल झोंकने जैसी बात है।

          मैं  माननीय मंत्री जी को धन्यवाद देना चाहता हूं कि बेनामी ट्रांजेक्शन प्रतिषेध अधिनियम, 1988 में व्यापक बदलाव पर कठोर एवं प्रशासनिक रूप से सशक्त करने का प्रयास किया है। आज कालेधन के कुबेर अपनी काली कमाई से बेनामी संपत्ति खरीदने के गोरखधंधे में लगे हुए हैं।

          अध्यक्ष महोदया, कानून बनाने के बाद यह पूर्णरूपेण बंद हो जायेगा, इसमें संदेह है, क्योंकि ये लोग काफी चालबाज होते हैं। इसलिए सरकार को कानून की बारीकी एवं सूक्ष्म से सूक्ष्म धाराओं को स्थापित करना होगा, तभी इस पर कुछ रोक लग सकती है। देश में सबसे अधिक काला धन रियल इस्टेट में लगता रहा है। यह पूरा का पूरा क्षेत्र काले धन पर खड़ा है। अगर इस पर थोड़ी कड़ाई होगी, तो रियल इस्टेट क्षेत्र का प्रतिकूल असर दिखेगा।

          अध्यक्ष महोदया, मैं एक और वि­षय सरकार के संज्ञान में लाना चाहता हूं कि इस कानून में सभी प्रकार की सम्पत्ति जब्त करने का अधिकार केन्द्र के पास होगा, किन्तु जमीन और जायदाद राज्यों  का विषय है। अतः इस प्रक्रिया में राज्य सरकार को भी शामिल करना होगा, अन्यथा कानूनी अड़चनें आ सकती हैं। इस प्रस्ताव में समय सीमा स्पष्­ट नहीं है, यानी किसी व्यक्ति को अपीलीय प्राधिकरण में कब तक अपील करने का अधिकार है, यह नहीं पता। उसके बाद अपीलीय प्राधिकरण कितने दिनों में अपील करने का निर्णय देता है, यह भी नही पता। इसके लिए उच्च न्यायालय में जाने के लिए कम से कम तीन महीने का समय रहना चाहिए। 

          अध्यक्ष महोदया, इससे एक समस्या और खड़ी होगी, क्योंकि विशे­षकर ग्रामीण इलाके में लोगों के पास जमीन के सही कागजात नहीं हैं। राज्य सरकार के पास भी पूर्ण लैंड का रिकार्ड नहीं है, इसलिए असली हकदार का पता लगाना मुश्किल होता है। पुराने टाइटल और नये टाइटल में विरोधाभास है। अनुसूचित जाति-जनजाति की जमीन को लेकर भी समस्याएं खड़ी होंगी, क्योंकि उनके पास टाइटल नहीं होते हैं।

          अध्यक्ष महोदया,  एक समस्या यह भी है कि कोई व्यक्ति विदेश में रहता है और वह यहां किसी बेनामी नामों से सम्पत्ति अर्जित कर लेता है। हमें इन सभी कठिनाइयों को भी ध्यान में रखना होगा। मैं मानता हूं कि कानून के बनाने से दीवानी मामले काफी बढ़ने की संभावना है, क्योंकि किसी भी बेनामीदार को पता चलेगा कि उनके नाम से कहीं सम्पत्ति है, तो फिर वह भी उस सम्पत्ति को हासिल करने के लिए सभी तरह के कानून का सहारा लेगा। इससे मुकदमेबाजी बढ़ेगी।

           अतः कानूनी पेचीदगी को सुलझाने की आवश्यकता है। मेरा मानना है कि छः महीने की जेल और 25 प्रतिशत तक जुर्माना लगा देने से यह कानून कठोर हो जायेगा, ऐसा नहीं लगता। आप सम्पत्ति जब्त करने का अधिकार पूर्णरूपेण ले लें। इसके साथ-साथ आये दिने अखबार में आता रहता है कि अमुक अधिकारी के यहां छापा पड़ा और अकूत सम्पत्ति का पता चला। अब तो छोटे-छोटे पदों पर नियुक्त कर्मचारियों के यहां भी छापे पर अकूत सम्पत्ति मिल रही है। अगर सरकार पिछले दस-पन्द्रह वष्­ाऩ पहले से सेवानिवृत्त हो चुके बड़े अधिकारियों और छोटे कर्मचारियों की शिकायतों पर जांच करे, तो उसकी भी काली कमाई वाली सम्पत्ति का पता चल सकता है। मेरा सुझाव है कि ऐसे मामलों पर कार्रवाई की जाये।

          अध्यक्ष महोदया, मैं सशक्त एवं प्रभावी कानून की आशा करता हूं  और माननीय मंत्री जी को इस बिल पर बधाई देता हूं। धन्यवाद                                                                                       SHRI C.N. JAYADEVAN (THRISSUR): Thank you Madam Speaker.  The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015 is brought to bring comprehensive amendments to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and to deal with benami transactions effectively. 

          We know that many of the politicians and bureaucrats in the country are amassing property worth more than their legal income in benami names.  The detail of so many such transactions has come to light during the recent search for black money in the country as well as abroad.  I think, this Bill will help to check this menace to a great extent if implemented properly. 

          The Standing Committee had noted that the Income Tax, 1961 has adequate provisions to deal with issues of tax evasion and unaccounted wealth.  Certain amendments to this Act, to account for unexplained investments made under benami names, will achieve the objectives of the Bill instead of creating a separate law. 

The Committee had also noted that benami transactions could be pre-empted and eliminated by digitalisation of land records.  Further, the Bill provides for confiscation of properties which are adjudged as Benami properties.  Rights over these properties are vested with the Central Government.  The Committee stated that since land is a State subject under the Constitution, rights over confiscated properties should vest with the State Governments instead of the Central Government.  So, I would like to know what is the Government’s reaction to these issues.  I support the Bill.  Thank you, Madam.

 

SHRI C.K. SANGMA (TURA): Thank you, Madam, for giving this opportunity to be a part of this debate.  I would, first of all, like to congratulate the Finance Minister and the hon. Prime Minister for bringing this Bill today which was dormant for so many years.  Having said that, I would like to add just two points to this. 

The first point that I would like to say is that it is so critical that in this particular Bill, or this particular Act that it is going to be, coordination with States must be done.  Since land is a State subject, unless and until there is proper coordination between the Centre and the State, it will be very difficult for this Act to be actually implemented at the grass root level. 

          Let me just give an example of my State.  I am sure there are many other States that will have the same kind of situation.  My State has an Act called the Land Transfer Act which prohibits outside people, people from outside the State, to buy land.  In situations like this, it complicates the entire situation.  That is just one of the Acts. 

Second, we are a Sixth Schedule area.  Being a Sixth Schedule area, the land belongs to the clan; the land belongs to the headman.  The land does not belong to any individual.  In this particular Act, there is no provision to allow the clan to be exempted from this law.  I think, first of all, I would like to say that the local laws and the local land Acts must be taken into consideration when this law is being passed and coordination with the States must be done; otherwise this Act will never be implemented properly at the grass root level. 

          Another issue about the black money that is coming up is this.  This whole law has been brought up for the black money.  I think, our hon. Finance Minister is much more aware than us that in North East, most of the tribals are exempted from income tax.  When there is an exemption from income tax, at the same time, there are laws like the Land Transfer Act.  It is a wonderful scenario for anybody who wants to do benami.  It is because, if you want to buy land there, you have to do it through benami; there is no other way.  If a company wants to come and set up a business out there, they have to get it and they have to tie up with local people.  Only then can they do it.  The income tax not being applicable, there is lot of inflow of cash that is coming in.  Therefore, these kinds of situations need to be considered when we pass this Bill.

          Another important issue is this.  Since we are talking of black money, I want to add, which again the hon. Finance Minister is aware, that North East is a very vulnerable location.  There is a lot of fake money that comes in through the borders.  We have porous borders with Bangladesh.  A lot of counterfeit money is coming in.  At the same time, we have got income tax exemptions, and there are land transfer issues.  I think, it is a very serious situation.  I think the Central Government must make Acts and policies that are very much tailored to the situation at the grass root level.  But, having said that, I would not like to say anything against the tribals out here.  But, all I am saying is that the Central Government must respect the sentiments of the tribal people and, at the same time, ensure that the Act is implemented in true spirit.

          The last point which I would like to mention is this.  Multiple laws are there to act against black money.  I think the way GST has come to streamline all the taxes, if laws can come to streamline the black money, I think, it would make more sense.  Here, you are giving more teeth and more power, of course, to the income tax officers which is a good thing.  But, at   the same time, it could be misutilized by them. I think, that is very critical and there the Government must make some provisions to ensure that they are not misutilized. ब्लैक मनी की जो बात हो रही थी कि ब्लैक मनी में when the Government is taking steps to abolish the benami transactions, I think black money comes  because of the high registration.  So, if the registration is cut down, then I think people will come in and give the real value of the land. So, I think black money could be targeted more through registration being lowered.

DR. BOORA NARSAIAH GOUD (BHONGIR): I would congratulate the Finance Minister and also the Government.  The Bill, which has been lying dormant for the last 27 years, has been brought today for the introduction and also to pass. This shows the will of the Government.  Actually, I wanted to speak much on this subject but because of the constraint of time, I would like to stress only on two or three points.

          Benami transactions are mostly ज्यादातर बेईमानी होती है, आपको भी पता है। उसको खत्म करने के लिए बिल लाया गया है, लेकिन हरेक आदमी सिर्फ प्रोपर्टी के बारे में बात कर रहा है। There are many assets you can create through benami transactions. जैसे शेयर्स में होता है, कोई आदमी दूसरे नाम पर लगा सकता है। उस वि­षय पर अभी स्पेसिफिक कुछ भी बात नहीं कही गई है, शायद फाइनेंस मिनिस्टर उसके बारे में कुछ बोलेंगे। दूसरे, जो भी एग्जीक्यूटर है, वह जज भी है और एग्जीक्यूटर  भी है, हमारा कहना है कि वह दोनों नहीं होना चाहिए। इंकम टैक्स ऑफिसर्स कैसे काम करते हैं, यह आपको मालूम ही है। प्राइमा फेसी, कोई  किसी प्रोपर्टी को कहे कि यह बेनामी प्रोपर्टी है, आप ट्रांजैक्शन करते है। आपको मालूम है कि फिर यदि केस चलता है, उसके बाद वह एपीलेट ट्रिब्यूनल, फिर हाई कोर्ट, फिर उसके बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जाता है। तब तक 30-40 साल गुजर जाते हैं। तब तक प्रोपर्टी का क्या हाल होता है? कोई घर होने दो, या प्रोपर्टी होने दो, खेत होने दो, my request is that there should be a time limit.

माननीय अध्यक्ष : कितने प्वाइंट्स हैं?

डॉ. बूरा नरसैय्या गौड:  मैडम, केवल तीन-चार प्वाइंट्स हैं। बिसिल पॉवर इसमें आनी चाहिए। अकसर होता यह है कि जिसके नाम प्रोपर्टी रीसेल होती है, उसको पता नहीं है, चाहे वह ड्राईवर हो, सर्वेन्ट हो, उसको पता ही नहीं चलता कि उसके नाम पर प्रोपर्टी है। अगर बिसिल पॉवर हो, अगर हम उनको थोड़ा इंसेंटिव देंगे,  मान लीजिए कि सौ करोड़ रुपये की प्रोपर्टी है, अगर बिसिल पॉवर हम इसमें शामिल करते हैं तो कम से कम दस प्रतिशत या बीस प्रतिशत यदि हम उनको इसमें देते हैं तो बहुत अच्छा होगा।

          चौथे, अकसर यह बात रीयल स्टेट में होती है। मैंने देखा है कि एक एक आदमी चार चार अपार्टमेंट्स खरीद सकते हैं। मैं नाम नहीं लेना चाहता हूं, लेकिन जिसको चाहिए, वे खरीद नहीं सकते हैं। इसलिए ज़ीरो-टैगिंग ऑफ दि प्रोपर्टी करें।

          अंत में, मैं हमारे वित्त मंत्री जी की तारीफ करना चाहता हूं। हमारे मित्र कह रहे थे, हमारे वित्त मंत्री जी इतने काबिल वकील हैं कि वह किसी मुजरिम को फांसी भी सुना सकते हैं और उसको कंविंस भी कर सकते हैं कि उसके लिए फांसी क्यों बनाई गई है।

          अंत में, मैं एक ही बात कहना चाहता हूं कि ईमानदार की रक्षा करिए। बेईमान को शिक्षित करिए।

                                                                                                         

HON. SPEAKER: Saugata Ji, I think you cannot complete in two minutes.

 

PROF. SAUGATA ROY (DUM DUM): Madam, today I am over-whelmed with gratefulness towards you that you allowed me again.  I agree with you that the House should end at proper time at 6 ‘o’ clock. Your effort in this regard is very much appreciated. Hence, I will be super short.

          Already Kalyan Banerjee Ji on our side has made all the points.  He is an eminent lawyer. All that I wanted to say is that as a Member of the Standing Committee on Finance, we had eight meetings on the Benami Transaction Bill and we gave an unanimous report in which we said that a fresh law should be brought.  I want to ask this to the hon. Minister why is it that you chose to over-ride the unanimous recommendation of the Finance Committee in which your party colleague Shri Nishikant Dubey was also a part, and went ahead with the Bill?  

          My second question is this. The purpose and the intention of the Minister is good. He wants to end black money. But he very often said that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and actually by bringing this Act, he is opening the path to hell because in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Bill does not state that the purpose is to eradicate black money. Nowhere is it mentioned. Suddenly, he says it is to eradicate black money. That is all.

          Here in this Act there is a provision for confiscation under 27(1) and it will vest in the Central Government. But if somebody evades income tax and the money comes or the money comes from smuggling, human trafficking or drug offences, it is all right. Let it vest in the Central Government.  But the State Government allocates land like it is done in many townships for residential purpose or for setting up of a factory. Then, why should it not vest in the State Government? It is because it should go back to the State Government which had originally allocated the land.

          Lastly, I think this will open a serious problem in rural areas where there are no proper land records and there are cash transactions. Lakhs of people will become homeless. We have said that this will open the road to tax terrorism. The Bill should not become another coercive instrument in the hands of the Revenue Department to forcibly collect or mobilise taxes as the existing Income Tax Act has adequate provisions and teeth to deal with issues such as tax evasion and unaccounted income.

          So, my last appeal to the hon. Finance Minister is this. He is a person with a large heart. He is magnanimous. Maybe, he has brought the Bill but if everybody has said that we support the intention of the Bill, you bring a proper new Bill. We will all support it unanimously. Let him take back the Bill today and come with a new Bill.

                                                                                               

HON. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Madam, I am extremely grateful to a very large number of hon. Members who have spoken on this Bill.

          Of course, Mr. Gowda opened the discussion and made some very valid points but one point which has been made across by several Members--Mr. Kalyan Banerjee made this point and Mr. Saugata Roy again raised it—is that the Standing Committee had said that we need a new Bill. The reason why the Standing Committee said that we need a new Bill is that the original 1988 Bill was a small Bill with nine Sections. It provided for acquisition of a property. Now when you acquire, you pay compensation. In any acquisition law, compensation is to be payable. There was no vesting of that property in the Government. It was an acquisition in favour of the Government. Then, the entire procedure, the principles of compensation, the authorities for acquisition and implementing—all was absent in that Bill.

          The Law Ministry took a view that the basic principles of the Bill, if all this to be done by the rules, would be ultra vires because this would be a case of excessive delegation, and therefore, the rules cannot be framed. From 1988 till today 2016, the rules have not been framed. One of the hon. Members wanted to know whether any properties have been actually acquired. The answer is ‘no’ because the machinery for enforcement itself was not created, though there are two judgements of the Supreme Court which interprets this Act in order to tell us as to what is Benami and what is not Benami.

          The 1988 Act also has a provision for prosecution. The provision for prosecution, prohibition and acquisition remained in that Act. So, the prosecution provision under section 3(3) says that whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or both. So, whoever subsequent to 1988 entered into a transaction which was a benami transaction, either of the two parties would be liable for prosecution.

So, if we had accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee – repealed the 1988 Act and recreated a new law in 2016 – that would have been granting immunity to all people who acquired properties benami between 1988 and 2016. Obviously, the acquisition now cannot take place, but the penal provisions of the 1988 Act also would have stood repealed. When a new Act with a similar provision would have come, it could only apply for a penal provision to properties which are benami and entered into after 2016.

Anybody will know that a law can be made retrospective, but under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, penal laws cannot be made retrospective. The simple answer to the question why we did not bring a new law is that a new law would have meant giving immunity to everybody from the penal provisions during the period 1988 to 2016 and giving a 28-year immunity would not have been in larger public interest, particularly if large amounts of unaccounted and black money have been used to transact those transactions. That was the principal object. Therefore, prima facie the argument looks attractive that ‘there is a 9-section law and you are inserting 71 sections into it. So, you bring a new law.’, but a new law would have had consequences which would have been detrimental to public interest. 

DR. M. THAMBIDURAI (KARUR): Since you want to penalise those people, how many cases were registered from 1988 to till date using the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act?  There have passed so many years since that Act was enacted. Without that, how are you going to do it?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: That is precisely the argument because the machinery for enforcing that Act from 1988 was never created. Today, that machinery is being made operative under the present amendment.

          One of the questions which Mr. Gowda raised was: What is the protection being granted to the whistleblowers under this Act? I will deal with each one of the substantial questions which the hon. Members have raised. Under this Act, whistleblowers need not get any protection because we have a specific law for whistleblowers which applies across laws to all whistleblowers irrespective of the whistleblowing that they do. So, a whistleblower can give you information about violation of moneylaundering laws or of FEMA or of Income Tax or of benami transaction. When a whistleblower gives that information, he gets protection under the Whistleblowers Act. So, each of the legislations in relation to which he gives information need not be made specific as far as he is concerned.

          Then, Mr. Gowda asked : When offences under this Act are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years - it is a serious offence - why have we made it non-cognizable? This is a violation of a tax law and a violation of a tax law is punishable. It is made non-cognizable because we do not want multiple agencies to come and start harassing people.  Immediately the police would also come in and start harassing people. The object is not to harass them; the object is that there must be prosecution if he has violated this particular law.

          Now, one of the questions which you raised was that the Standing Committee has made a very valid suggestion that the property or the asset acquired should be out of ‘known sources’ as against the original phrase ‘known sources of income’. You are absolutely right. The Standing Committee suggested that the word should be ‘known sources’ and not ‘known sources of income’ because if a person is accused of having acquired a benami property, he can legitimately say, ‘that this is not my income, I have borrowed this money from a bank, or I have taken this money from another family member’. If he is able to show that, then that is a legitimate defense. So, the sources would be known, though it would not be sources of his income. It was a correct suggestion which has been made. If you see the list of amendments which the Government has circulated, in accordance with the recommendations of the Standing Committee, in amendment Nos. 3, 4 and 5, I have proposed to the hon. House that the phrase ‘of income’ in all the three clauses, wherever it is mentioned, should be deleted, and the word in the amended clause would be ‘known sources’ and not ‘known sources of income’. That suggestion has already been incorporated in the amendments that I have suggested.

          You also raised a question, which is a valid question, that at the appellate stage, there is a provision with regard to the right of representation through an authorised representative. Now, there are serious consequences. One of the serious consequences before the adjudicating authority is that a person is liable to lose his property. Since the consequences are severe, we have provided in the original Act a provision for right of representation before the appellate authority, but the original Bill did not provide for a right of representation before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, amendment No. 9 that I have proposed, in accordance with the suggestion that you have said, provides that “the benamidar or any person who claims to be the owner of the property may appear either in person or take the assistance of an authorised representative.” So, the exact suggestion which you have made is already there in the amendment that I have proposed.

          You then raised this whole issue of why we have these four stages, that is, the initiating officer, the acting officer, the adjudicating officer, etc. The entire object of this is that you must have this case of confiscation of his asset, the vesting, in the Government. Different people must apply themselves; it must go in stages so that there is no misuse of power by any one individual. After all, when there are different authorities at different grades which go and apply their mind, then, obviously, the matter has been seriously gone into. It is a protection in favour of the citizen that there is no unfair action – one person may be vindictive; and with one person, there is a possibility of going wrong. Therefore, if you do it in various stages, obviously, the possibility of error gets significantly reduced.

          The hon. Member from the AIADMK raised a question as to why the High Court has been given the power to decide and adjudicate upon issues on which the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority may not have decided. I think giving the High Court the power is important because if some issue is of significant importance and, in the entire proceedings, has been left out, then it is obvious that before some higher authority, before a property is acquired because a valuable right is being lost, all issues are thrashed out and, therefore, there is no possibility of any issue having been left unattended, which would have otherwise been a defense which is available. This is the same reason why the power to record evidence is additionally being given to the appellate authority.

It is because if before the adjudicating authority, some evidence is left out and before the appellate authority which is headed by a Judge, a person who is about to lose his property says, “I have a defence to make. Maybe, this document was not considered. So, I want to place this additional document which goes to my defence. In all fairness, it should be allowed to be considered.” This is in accordance with the general principles of hearing appeals. Even in the Code of Civil Procedure, Order 41, Rule 27 is very clear that at the appellate stage, the power to introduce new evidence which has been ignored or left out by mistake before the original authority, is always there. That is a part of the justice process itself.

          One important question which has been raised by several Members is, as to why should the property vest in the Central Government, why not in the State Government? Under all acquisition laws, there are acquisition laws or vesting laws which are in the States also – the benami transaction law wherein a property is registered in the name of a person who has not made the payment for it or the income-tax law, these are central legislations. For example, we have the PMLA, which is the central legislation; we have the FEMA, it is a central legislation; we have the NDPS, it is a central legislation. Similarly, we have several State legislations where State Governments are empowered. Under all central legislations where vesting of property takes place, it vests in the Central Government. In the case of State legislations, when the vesting takes place, it vests in the State Government. At least, I am not aware of any law which is a central law under which vesting or acquisition takes place but the property rights then go to some other authority. They vest in the Central Government itself.

          Shri Kalyan Banerjee wanted to know and that is a legitimate point that he raised, as to the appellate authority not having been given a specific power of staying the order. When an appeal is pending, obviously vesting should not take place. As he knows, being an eminent lawyer himself, when an appellate authority has a power to pass a final order, the authority to pass a lesser order is inherently in that appellate authority. Since you have a power to allow the appeal and release the property from acquisition, inherently an appellate authority, in several legislations, where there is a power of appeal, there is always a power of interim suspension of the order which is inherent in that power of appeal, irrespective of whether it is specifically mentioned or not. There are pronouncements of courts to this effect.

          Which is the power and in how many days appeal could be filed? I think, the Act is very clear. There are two provisions in the Act. He wanted to know about the power to file an appeal and in how many days. He has said that it is not mentioned. If he looks at the legislation itself, clause 30 says:

“The Central Government, by notification, may establish an appellate authority to hear appeals against the order of the adjudicating authority.”   So, obviously, the appellate authority will hear appeals. The power to appeal lies to that authority. In how many days will an appeal has to be filed? I think, Section 46 is absolutely clear. It says:

“Any person, including the initiative officer, aggrieved by an order of the adjudicating authority, may prefer an appeal in such form and with such fees as may be prescribed, to the appellate authority against the order passed by the adjudicating authority within a period of 45 days.”   So, even the limitation period is also mentioned in the Act itself.

       One of the Members wanted to know about this power under Section 59 to issue directions by the Central Government. Will it interfere in the adjudicating power? The answer is ‘no’. Section 59(3) says that there are certain kinds of directions for administrative functioning, which can be issued. It very clearly says that no order, instruction or direction under sub-section 1 shall be issued which require the authority to decide a particular case in a particular manner. So, the directions issued have to be in relation to administrative matters and not in relation to other matters.

          Is this law in conflict with the Income Tax Act in any way?  The answer is ‘no’.  The Income Tax deals with various provisions of taxation, the powers to levy the procedures etc.  This particular law deals with any benami property which is acquired by a person in somebody else’s name to be vested in the Central Government.  So the two Acts are supplementary to each other as far as this Act is concerned. 

          A question has been raised with regard to the non-applicability of the Civil Procedure Code under Section 11.  But under Section 19 some of the powers which are similar to the Civil Procedure Code have been vested; this is there in all adjudicating Acts.  Ipso facto, the whole CPC is not applicable but since you have to hear matters, record evidence etc., there is a defined procedure which has been defined in Section 19 of the Act itself.

          एक प्रश्न आपने पूछा था कि जो प्रॉपर्टीज़ रिलीजस डाइटीस के नाम या होली बुक के नाम पर हैं, अब उसका मालिक कौन होगा? कहीं वे तो बेनामी नहीं मान लीज जाएंगी? इसीलिए इसमें सैक्शन 58 है, जिसमें स्प­ट रूप से लिखा हुआ है कि जो चैरिटेबल और रिलीजस ऑर्गनाइज़ेशंस की प्रॉपर्टीज़ हैं, उनको एग्ज़ेंप्ट करने का अधिकार सरकार को है। 

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN : As per Section 58, operation of the Act is exempted for the religious institutions as well as charitable institutions.  That means, I can very well have this benami property and I can enjoy the property also by having an understanding.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: If there is a genuine property which belongs to a church, mosque, gurdwara or a temple, Section 58 says the Government has power to exempt it.  But if you make an illegal business out of it, as you are suggesting us now that the property is your benami property and you create a fake religious sect and start keeping benami properties, then the Government would not exempt it.

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: Section 58 is very clear as far as the religious institutions and charitable institutions are concerned.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: But obviously if somebody plays a fraud, the Government has a power not to exempt such a property on which a fraud is played.  … (Interruptions)

HON. SPEAKER: Shri Jaitley, you are not supposed to answer something.  Shri Premachandran, please take your seat.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Shri Premachandran, it is very clear that Section 53 is meant for bona fide religious properties, not for religious properties only being used as a pretext of tax evasion. 

          A question has been raised that under Section 53 who would be liable?  Is it the person who acquires the property or the person who sells the property?  The language is very clear; whoever enters into benami transaction, and obviously both these people have entered into a benami transaction itself.

          Two very important questions have been raised.  Several Members have raised a question with regard to power of attorneys and so on or agreements, under which because of some peculiar reasons an arrangement has been entered into, consideration has been paid, property’s transfer of possession has taken place but finally the title deeds have not been registered.  In the original Bill, they were not covered.  But the Committee, which was headed by Shri Moily, who is fortunately here with us, strongly recommended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, all these properties which are covered under these arrangements, should also be included in this.  The Government has accepted that and introduced an official amendment in accordance with the recommendations of the Standing Committee.

          The last question which was raised by the hon. Member Shri Sangma from Meghalaya was with regard to properties in several Schedule areas which are covered by the Fifth Schedule itself.  This Act does not exempt those properties.  But that exemption would be available in the Article 244 of the Constitution.  Article 244 provides for a Fifth Schedule to the Constitution itself.

  18.00 hours           The Fifth Schedule, Clause 5 clearly says that wherever those scheduled properties are, the Governor of that State has the power to exempt the operation of any Central legislation to those areas. So, if any such contingency arises, the Governor of the State where the property is located, under clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule prepared under Article 244 has the power to exempt those properties. … (Interruptions)

HON. SPEAKER: It is six o’clock. If all of you agree, the time of the House is extended up to this Bill getting passed.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

HON. SPEAKER: Thank you.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: These were the various queries which were raised. Since it is a technical kind of a Bill, I have attempted to answer some of them. Most of the Members having supported this Bill as an important measure, I commend to this House this Bill for its acceptance.

HON. SPEAKER: The question is:

“That the Bill further to amend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, be taken into consideration.”   The motion was adopted.

Clause 2         Insertion of new heading before Section 1 HON. SPEAKER: The House will now take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

          The question is:

          “That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted.

Clause 2 was added to the Bill.

 

Clause 3            Amendment of Section 1  

HON. SPEAKER: Amendment No. 11 – Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab is not present.  

          The question is:  

          “That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.”  

The motion was adopted.  

Clause 3 was added to the Bill.  

   

Clause 4               Substitution of new Section for Section 2  

Amendments made:  

          Page 2, line 41, omit “of income”          (3)  

          Page 3, line 3, omit “of income”  (4)  

          Page 3, line 9, omit “of income”  (5)  

          Page 3, after line 16, insert –  

          “Explanation. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that benami transaction shall not include any transaction involving the allowing of possession of any property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881, if, under any law for the time being in force, --

(i) consideration for such property has been provided by the person to whom possession of property has been allowed but the person who has granted possession thereof continues to hold ownership of such property;

(ii) Stamp duty on such transaction or arrangement has been paid; and

(iii) the contract has been registered.”.     (6)       (Shri Arun Jaitley)  HON. SPEAKER: Shri N.K. Premachandran, are you moving your Amendments?

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN : Yes Madam, I am moving Amendment No. 12.

HON. SPEAKER: These are Amendment Nos. 12 to 17. Are you moving all of them together?

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: I beg to move:

“Page 2, line 35,   for “immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect”           substitute “direct or indirect benefit.” ”                       (12)   “Page 3, line 13, --

after “property is not”   

insert “traceable or not”.”                                                (13)  

   

   

“Page 3, line 17, --  

after “fictitious person”   

insert “or a person not traceable”.”                                      (14)  

   

“Page 3, line 32, --  

after “open market”   

insert “or the fair value fixed by the Government”.”          (15)  

   

“Page 4, line 37, --  

after “transfer of”   

add “ownership”.         ”                                                        (16)  

   

“Page 4, line 45, --  

after “Partnership Act, 2008”  

insert “the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,   

            the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.” ”                     (17)   

   

HON. SPEAKER: I shall put Amendment Nos. 12 to 17 to clause 4 moved by Shri N.K. Premachandran to the vote of the House.

 

The amendments were put and negatived.

HON. SPEAKER: The question is:

          “That clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted.

Clause 4, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 were added to the Bill.

 

Clause 8              Substitution of new Sections for Section 5 and   

   

Amendment made:  

          Page 5, after line 23, insert –  

 “(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to a transfer made in accordance with the provisions of section 190 of the Finance Act, 2016.”  (7)   (Shri Arun Jaitley) HON. SPEAKER: The question is:

          “That clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted.

Clause 8, as amended, was added to the Bill.

 

Clause 9   Insertion of new Chapters III to VII Amendment made:

          “Page 9, line, 33,  

          for“served upon the other person who is a beneficial owner”,  

substitute “issued to the beneficial owner if his identity is known”.”                                                                     (8)  

            

“Page 11, after line 33, insert –  

 “(8) The benamidar or any other person who claims to be the owner of the property may either appear in person or take the assistance of an authorised representative of his choice to present his case.

Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-section (8), authorised representative means a person authorised in writing, being –

(i) a person related to the benamidar or such other person in any manner, or a person regularly employed by the benamidar or such other person as the case may be; or

(ii) any officer of a scheduled bank with which the benamidar or such other person maintains an account or has other regular dealings; or

(iii) any legal practitioner who is entitled to practice in any civil court in India; or

(iv) any person who has passed any accountancy examination recognised in this behalf by the Board; or

(v) any person who has acquired such educational qualifications as the Board may prescribe for this purpose.”.     (9)           Page 13, line 4,           for“he is, or has been a Judge of a High Court” substitute “he is a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court, who has completed not less than five years’ of service”.”      (10)   (Shri Arun Jatiley) HON. SPEAKER: Shri Premachandran, are you moving Amendment Nos. 18 to 27?

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: Madam, Amendment No. 17 is regarding many negotiable instruments. … (Interruptions)

HON. SPEAKER: This is about Amendment Nos. 18 to 27. I am not asking you to say anything.

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: Yes, I am moving.

HON. SPEAKER: You may move Amendments No. 18 to 27 together now.

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN: I am moving Amendment No. 17.

HON. SPEAKER: Is it only Amendment No. 17. What to do about all the other Amendments, from 18 to 27?

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN : They are subject of some other sections.

HON. SPEAKER: Now, you may move Amendment Nos. 18 to 27.

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN : I beg to move:

“Page 5, line 36, --

for “the Indian Legal Service”  

substitute “the Law Department in the   

                 Central Government or a State Government”.”          (18)  

   

“Page 5, line 37, --  

for “equivalent”   

substitute “higher”.”                         (19)  

   

“Page 5, omit lines 40 and 41.   ”         (20)  

   

“Page 6, for lines 14 to 17, --  

substitute “The Adjudicating Authority shall be bound  

                   by the procedure laid down by the Code of   

                  Civil Procedure, 1908”.”   (21)  

   

   

   

“Page 9, line 4, --  

after “extending the same”   

add “for a maximum period of another   

        three months”.”            (22)  

   

“Page 13, lines 6 and 7, --  

for “the Indian Legal Service”   

substitute “the Law Department in the  

                  Central Government or a State Government”.”        (23)  

   

   

“Page 13, line 7, --  

for “equivalent”   

substitute “higher”.”                                                               (24)  

   

“Page 16, omit lines 46 and 47.”                                                (25)  

   

“Page 17, line 9, --  

for “formulate that question”  

substitute “admit the case”.”                                                      (26)  

   

“Page 17, for lines 10 to 12, --  

substitute “(4) The appeal shall be heard on the question of law,  

                  and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal,  

                  be allowed to argue the case.”       ”                           (27)  

   

HON. SPEAKER: I shall put Amendment Nos. 18 to 27 to clause 9 moved by Shri N.K. Premachandran to the vote of the House.

The amendments were put and negatived.

HON. SPEAKER: The question is:

          “That clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted.

Clause 9, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 were added to the Bill.

     

Clause 1  Short Title and Commencement HON. SPEAKER: The Minister may now move Amendment No.2 to Clause 1.

Amendment made:

Page 1, line 3, for “2015”, substitute“2016”.             (2)  

                                                          (Shri Arun Jaitley)  

HON. SPEAKER: The question is:  

“That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”  

   

The motion was adopted.  

Clause1, as amended, was added to the Bill.  

   

Enacting Formula  

HON. SPEAKER: The Minister may now move Amendment No.1 to the Enacting Formula.

Amendment made:

Page 1, line 1, for “Sixty-sixth”,   

substitute “Sixty-seventh”.        (1)  

                                                 (Shri Arun Jaitley)  

   

HON. SPEAKER: The question is:  

“That the Enacting Formula, as amended, stand part of the Bill. ”  

   

The motion was adopted.  

The Enacting Formula, as amended, was added to the Bill.  

The  Long Title was added to the Bill.  

HON. SPEAKER: The Minister may now move that the Bill, as amended, be passed.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I beg to move:

“That the Bill, as amended, be passed.”   HON. SPEAKER: The question is:

“That the Bill, as amended, be passed.”   The motion was adopted.

 

HON. SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned to meet again tomorrow, the 28th July, 2016, at 11.00 a.m.   18.06 hours The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Thursday, July 28, 2016/Shravana 6, 1938 (Saka)       *ण्ड्ढ म्श्र्द अ र्ठ्ठद्धत्ड्ढड्ड ठ्ठडदृध्ड्ढ ण्ड्ढ दठ्ठर्ड्ढ दृढ ठ्ठ ग्ड्ढथ्र्डड्ढद्ध त्दड्डत्हठ्ठय्ड्ढद्म् ण्ठ्ठद्य् ण्ड्ढ र्द्वड्ढद्य्त्दृद र्ठ्ठद्म् ठ्ठहय्द्वठ्ठथ्न्र् ठ्ठत्ड्ढड्ड दृद ण्ड्ढ ढथ्दृदृद्ध दृढ ण्ड्ढ Hदृद्वम्ड्ढ डन्र् ण्ठ्ठद्य् ग्ड्ढथ्र्डड्ढद्ध.

     

*ग़्दृद्य् द्धड्ढहदृद्धड्डड्ढड्ड.

*ग़्दृद्य् द्धड्ढहदृद्धड्डड्ढड्ड.

*ग़्दृद्य् द्धड्ढहदृद्धड्डड्ढड्ड.

*र्द्धड्ढठ्ठय्ड्ढड्ड ठ्ठद्म् थ्ठ्ठत्ड्ड दृद ण्ड्ढ र्ठ्ठडथ्ड्ढ.